 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / January 2006Film vs. Digital Scorecard
Could someone direct me to sites/articles that have accurate information on film vs. digital in terms of camera and film sales figures, discontinued products, and projections that have credibility? Thanks, Jim > Could someone direct me to sites/articles that have accurate information on > film vs. digital in terms of camera and film sales figures, discontinued > products, and projections that have credibility? > > Thanks, > Jim Hi Jim, I'm curious also. Not so much about digital vs. film camera sales, but more about film sales. There are a "few" million film cameras that haven't been thrown in the garbage yet. Dick R. > Hi Jim, > I'm curious also. Not so much about digital vs. film camera sales, > but more about film sales. There are a "few" million film cameras > that haven't been thrown in the garbage yet. > > Dick R. Film availability is a worry, but I was encouraged by Fuji's recent announcement pledging to support film users. http://home.fujifilm.com/news/n060119_2.html I think I'll learn to coat my own glass plates just in case. It won't do much good for the Elan 7N I bought about a year ago, but I can switch to large format. SW > Could someone direct me to sites/articles that have accurate information on > film vs. digital in terms of camera and film sales figures, discontinued > products, and projections that have credibility? > > Thanks, > Jim Gartner Group and CapVentures InfoTrends. Both those will cost you a great deal of money. PMAI are another source, though they often only summarize the InfoTrends reports. The reason you have to pay a great deal to read these things is that they are intended for financial analysts, investors, and companies involved in this business. I have a few friends who share there reports with me on occasion. I cannot state I read them all, most are just too long and boring for that. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 21:59:40 -0800, Gordon Moat <moat@attglobal.net> >Gartner Group and CapVentures InfoTrends. Both those will cost you a Gartner? the same one that does IT consulting/advising for corporations? In the photo business, are they advising from the vendors' point of view? >great deal of money. PMAI are another source, though they often only >summarize the InfoTrends reports. The reason you have to pay a great >deal to read these things is that they are intended for financial >analysts, investors, and companies involved in this business. I have a >few friends who share there reports with me on occasion. I cannot state >I read them all, most are just too long and boring for that. Unless you need to make life-and-death business decisions based on the information you read in these reports. Otherwise, how can anyone justify _paying_ $$$$ for them? Father Kodak > On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 21:59:40 -0800, Gordon Moat <moat@attglobal.net> > >>Gartner Group and CapVentures InfoTrends. Both those will cost you a > > Gartner? the same one that does IT consulting/advising for > corporations? Yes. > In the photo business, are they advising from the vendors' point of > view? I think the reports are mostly geared towards investors who might be interested in companies involved in the manufacture or sale of imaging products. I get to look at these reports on occasion because of a few generous people I know in the financial industry. >>great deal of money. PMAI are another source, though they often only >>summarize the InfoTrends reports. The reason you have to pay a great [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > information you read in these reports. Otherwise, how can anyone > justify _paying_ $$$$ for them? Think huge amounts of money floating around based upon such reports. If some investors or companies might consider the huge amounts of money going in other directions, then these reports help make decision slightly simpler. Remember that less than 5% of investors control 98% of public corporations, though that 5% is mostly financial institutions. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> >> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 21:59:40 -0800, Gordon Moat <moat@attglobal.net> >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >products. I get to look at these reports on occasion because of a few >generous people I know in the financial industry. Ah. In the world high-tech, Gartner advises IT departments and critiques vendors, the kinds of companies I work for. It's only a slight exaggeration to say that we, the vendors, all kiss up to Gartner and their ilk, because a press release or a web page with a Gartner quote is worth a LOT. Father Kodak >Think huge amounts of money floating around based upon such reports. If >some investors or companies might consider the huge amounts of money >going in other directions, then these reports help make decision >slightly simpler. Remember that less than 5% of investors control 98% of >public corporations, though that 5% is mostly financial institutions. sales? no sites but here is a very credible note worthy statement as t the future. Like it or not Arizona Highways is my only judge as to photographic quality standards Not my cousin, not my buddy, not the Nikon salesman, not you and no me.. So what do they say about the quality of digital these days? http://www.arizonahighways.com/page.cfm?name=Photo_Talk1105&page=2 Digital Photography Arrives—Even at Arizona Highways by Peter Ensengerger, Arizona Highways Director of Photography Arizona Highways photography is entering the Digital Age. There. I’ve said it. After 80 years of showcasing the finest print reproduction traditiona film allows, the world’s premiere scenic magazine has added digita imaging to its repertoire. I can hear scattered gasps out there. In the past, I unapologetically defended Arizona Highways’ preferenc for film, particularly 4x5 film. I had no qualms. Digital wasn’t read for prime time. But barring the scenic door against digital image generated a lot of criticism. Well—we’ve propped open the door. Sort of. At right are two nearly identical photographs, one from film, on digital. We followed our normal color correction process for the fil reproduction, but made only minor contrast, brightness and sharpenin adjustments to the digital image. Odds are, I’ll be as surprised as yo when I compare the results printed in the magazine. But before I revea which is which, take a closer look. Can you discern any differences? D you prefer one to the other? Study these photographs and send m feedback as our long-resisted changeover takes place before your eyes But beleagured traditionalists need not fear. We won’t abandon film Granted, mainstream digital images have surpassed 35 mm film and ar gaining on medium-format film. However, digital still can’t touc large-format film for the full-page reproductions that have mad Arizona Highways famous. Digital images will supplant only th photographs that were once the province of smaller film formats. Thi initial step toward film’s ultimate demise offers benefits to magazin publishing. But in our expanding use of digital images, we will hold t the same exacting standards we have for film. Raising the rafters of modern technology in the house photography buil is nothing new. Although steeped in tradition, Arizona Highways ha always kept up with advancements in the printing arts. Over the years the magazine’s caretakers exercised wise stewardship in upholding it legacy. Now new technologies present advantages that will keep Arizon Highways on the cutting edge. And once again, we must exercise tha wise stewardship. Our fondness for 4x5 film stems from Arizona Highways’ demand fo photographs of the highest quality. The 4x5 view camera remain unsurpassed for landscape photography, in part due to the size of th image. When it comes to print reproduction, size matters. The large the original image, the better the reproduction. Typical digita capture still cannot match the amount of information contained on sheet of 4x5 film. But the greatest advantage of the view camera lies in its ability t control perspective. View-camera movements allow adjustments to th film plane to maintain sharp focus from foreground to background whil keeping the lines in a scene perfectly straight and square. This is no possible using cameras with fixed film (or image sensor) planes such a single-lens reflex cameras. The forced-perspective landscapes that have dazzled Arizona Highway readers for decades are the products of view-camera photography. Loo at our front cover and notice how the forced perspective keeps both th foreground sunflowers and distant mountains in sharp focus and proper perspective. Likewise, the sprea on pages 8 and 9 provides extraordinary depth of field withou distorting the vertical tree trunks as a wide-angle lens on a 35 m camera would do. Of course, I’m proud that Arizona Highways remains one of the las magazines to offer readers the unique qualities of 4x5 film. As othe magazines tout their switch to digital photography, Arizona Highway quietly maintains traditions wrought by 80 years of consistent quality and style. But then, who knows what lies ahead in the next 80 years? By then, Arizona Highways may be boasting of its digital traditions. Now, what’s your verdict on the two photographs at right? The image on the top is from film, the one on the bottom from digital capture. Surprised?  Signaturesobolik > Arizona Highways is my only judge as to photographic quality standards. Does National Geographic accept digital images, or do they still insist on transparencies? SW >>Arizona Highways is my only judge as to photographic quality standards. > > Does National Geographic accept digital images, or do they still insist on > transparencies? > > SW If you dig through the National Geographic website, you will find specifications for placing advertisements within their pages. They accept those submissions on CD-R. So if you have seen advertisements in National Geographic that appear in poor colour, or poor detail, then the company submitting it would have made the mistake, though it is my understanding that National Geographic reviews and checks all such submissions. What their photographers and story people use is a different matter. The NG offices include some quite nice scanning gear, so submitting film would not be a problem. I think they would probably be okay with someone scanning film themselves, and sending it in. They have also done one story where the photographer used a Contax 645 with a digital back, and at least a few more with some images coming from high end D-SLRs. As long as the files meet their reproduction requirements, and lack aberrations, nearly anything should work okay. The process for story acceptance to National Geographic is not easy. The editors still have the say over what images are printed with each feature. They also run their own presses, which is a bit unusual for a magazine. If you want to see the absolute highest printing quality in any magazine today, try to find a copy of a publication out of Detroit called Clear. It is mostly a fashion and lifestyle magazine, so those only interested in landscapes and nature images would be better off skipping it entirely. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> > What their photographers and story people use is a different matter. The > NG offices include some quite nice scanning gear, so submitting film would [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > files meet their reproduction requirements, and lack aberrations, nearly > anything should work okay. Thanks for the information. I'm trying to get an accurate picture, pardon the pun, of digital market share in terms of camera and film sales, and consumer and professional use. A stock agency has some of my slides and they tell me that new submissions are currently 60% digital. Most news photography is now digital, for obvious reasons. I'm sure almost all throw-away commercial photography is now digital, catalogs for example, but I wonder if film is still used extensively for other types of ads. My guess is that almost all print advertising is shot digital, but I'd be interested to see objective survey results. Has there been an advertising industry survey that anyone knows of? Thanks, SW >>What their photographers and story people use is a different matter. The >>NG offices include some quite nice scanning gear, so submitting film would [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > to see objective survey results. Has there been an advertising industry > survey that anyone knows of? If you follow PDN Forums, there was a news item about that not too long ago. Mostly, there are some predictions, and a few notable statistics. One interesting figure came from the last World Press Photo awards; nearly 80% of the entries were shot direct digital capture. So I have read in many areas of film only being used about 20% of the time by professionals. Obviously, most photojournalism will be direct digital, with the need for nearly instant delivery to meet deadlines. Sport photography will also mostly be direct digital, with a few exceptions. In these two realms, longer term projects and editorial pieces can be done on film, since there would not be deadline pressure. Other professional photography realms will have different ratios. Product photography in the US and EU are largely direct digital, with very few exceptions. Architecture imagery is often 6x7, or large format, and seems to be less often digital capture (I think the prices of digital backs might be the biggest issue). Fashion and lifestyle photography are all over the place, but rarely have deadline pressures. The realms I know less about are wedding and portrait imaging. There is WPPI, which is the national organization for those photographers. There is also Rangefinder Magazine, which devotes about half their issues to wedding and portrait photography. Consumers are definitely the biggest users of film, and the biggest buyers of digital cameras. You can find lots of numbers and information by getting the financial statements of Kodak and Fuji, the biggest companies in this. There is also PMAI, which is the industry organization for all things photography equipment and photo finishing industry. Based upon numbers I have seen, the largest film sales are one time use cameras. The greatest volume sales in digital imaging is mobile phone cameras (a.k.a. camera phones). If you do not count camera phones in sales numbers, then compact digital are the big sellers, and D-SLRs count for less than 6% of the total market volume. Very few sales go to professionals, even if you only looked at D-SLRs. Getting sales figures for digital backs for medium format cameras is very tough, since those are mostly private companies that do not report sales volume; my guess at this is sales are extremely low numbers. Stock photography is another realm entirely. A few companies have announced digital submission only, though if you can scan the film and meet the file requirements there are not any large companies opposed to that. One of the worst practises is Getty, who now have a list of approved D-SLRs, and will reject files from D-SLRs not matching that list in the EXIF data. Some stock agencies are streamlining, which should mean in the future that they might not want to scan your film for you; that means you would need to get good at scanning in order to continue shooting on film. Well, if I left anything out, let me know, or ask more. I gave several different names of companies and organizations, so you may want to search the internet for more detailed numbers. In the advertising industry, it seems a common approach of larger companies to go with whatever the photographer is comfortable using, and not forcing the photographer to use gear with which they might be unfamiliar. Obviously if something was last minute, or under three hours, then shooting film, developing, selecting and scanning would not be practical. If you want to get involved in advertising, try to find Picture magazine, and read all the industry interview with creatives, art buyers, and art directors. Best of luck. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> > Consumers are definitely the biggest users of film, and the biggest > buyers of digital cameras. You can find lots of numbers and information [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > in sales numbers, then compact digital are the big sellers, and D-SLRs > count for less than 6% of the total market volume. The market for DSLRs is still growing strong while the over all market for digital cameras is flattening out. The margins for DSLRs is also large compared to the compared digital cameras. So expect to see the percent of DSLRs growing in the next few years. > Stock photography is another realm entirely. A few companies have > announced digital submission only, though if you can scan the film and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > you; that means you would need to get good at scanning in order to > continue shooting on film. I can't blame Getty for limiting which cameras they will accept photos from. It may be that this is more to limit the flood of submissions more then a quality issue. I don't know what it is about DSLRs but it seems just about everybody that owns one thinks they should be able to make money off of it somehow. But I also understood that the 1Ds Mark II has a pixel count that was more or less set to meet the file size requirements for some of the stock photo houses. Scott >>Consumers are definitely the biggest users of film, and the biggest >>buyers of digital cameras. You can find lots of numbers and information [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > large compared to the compared digital cameras. So expect to see the > percent of DSLRs growing in the next few years. I certainly hope D-SLRs grow in sales volumes. I think that would help the cost to quality level. >>Stock photography is another realm entirely. A few companies have >>announced digital submission only, though if you can scan the film and [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > DSLRs but it seems just about everybody that owns one thinks they > should be able to make money off of it somehow. Getty only invites photographers to join one of the stock agencies they own, they do not take open submissions of images. There were some heated discussion threads on a few professional forums concerning the Getty practice. Mostly it seemed that the reasons for restricting digital submissions was poor file handling, not so much a resolution issue as colour issues. There are definitely many more penny stock places now, and a few open submission sites. There was an article recently about a photographer getting 0.20¢ for an image that IBM used; surprisingly the "photographer" was happy to see her image being used . . . I think this is a disturbing trend, and a bad sign for the future of photographers shooting stock imagery. > But I also understood that the 1Ds Mark II has a pixel count that was > more or less set to meet the file size requirements for some of the > stock photo houses. Sort of . . . the Kodak DCS 14 was another one that could be lumped into that realm. The pixel file dimensions were dictated as being a two page spread with bleed, and without interpolation. That would often be 11.5" by 17.5" final printed pages, often at 300 dpi. Unfortunately the printing industry is progressing more, and now 355 dpi and 400 dpi are becoming more common. The reality is that few images become two page spreads, so meeting a full page plus bleed, or maybe a large magazine cover would be more realistic. In another year, there should be a few D-SLRs hitting over 22 MP. I think the 20 to 24 MP range is a practical limit for nearly all publications. Hopefully, when those cameras are more commonly available, the prices will go down a little. Digital backs for medium format are a different realm, though maybe the pricing might change there too. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> : >>What their photographers and story people use is a different matter. The : >>NG offices include some quite nice scanning gear, so submitting film would [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] : A G Studio : <http://www.allgstudio.com> Gordon, your incorrect use of the description "Direct Digital" is very confusing. Direct digital refers to a camera tethered to a computer where the images it captures are directly recorded by the computer. I know you mean recording to a flash card and then copying the image to a computer or output device instead of scanning film and then digitising the image but this is an incorrect use of the term. I'm surprised someone as dedicated to fine detail as you, continue to use this description. >. . . . . . . . > : > Gordon, your incorrect use of the description "Direct Digital" is very > confusing. Direct digital refers to a camera tethered to a computer where > the images it captures are directly recorded by the computer. Sorry Doug. I think of scanned film (or scanned illustration) as indirect digital, hence that is where my usage originates. I guess I have trouble calling them digital cameras, since the chip is analogue, though the files coming out of the camera are "digital". It is possible to operate some D-SLRs tethered, and most medium format digital backs that way too. However, those are different matters, and not working methods I would recommend. > I know you mean recording to a flash card and then copying the image to a > computer or output device instead of scanning film and then digitising the > image but this is an incorrect use of the term. I'm surprised someone as > dedicated to fine detail as you, continue to use this description. I like to make up terminology as I go along, which might seem confusing. The benefit is everyone will always know it was me making such a statement. Sort of funny when I see the same terminology I use get repeated elsewhere . . . sometimes in surprising places. Hey, side discussion; are you still running that AGFA Sherpa? Some replacement? If you don't mind me asking, what sort of cost per page, or cost per square foot (square centimetre?) are you getting? You can reply off group to my e-mail, if yo don't want the information here. Thanks. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> > I like to make up terminology as I go along, which might seem confusing. But you should be careful when you do "make up terminology" that it's not already in use with another meaning. >> I like to make up terminology as I go along, which might seem confusing. > > But you should be careful when you do "make up terminology" that it's > not already in use with another meaning. Now where would be the fun in that? Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> : Hey, side discussion; are you still running that AGFA Sherpa? Some : replacement? If you don't mind me asking, what sort of cost per page, or [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] : A G Studio : <http://www.allgstudio.com> That Sherpa was a fine start to wide format printing. It was costly to run and troublesome to maintain. When it worked properly, there was no printer of the time (2003) that could rival it's attenuation. Sadly it went the way of all my troublesome gear. GONE! My other printer is a Canon W8400. The earlier model (lasted a year - cost $9k) got itself a shocking reputation for ink cost and reliability but this one is a little tamer. It uses pigment ink which costs an arm and a leg ...and uses a lot of it too but it is unrivalled in it's magazine cover quality output. I can print on silk - amazing when you see a shirt made from it - or canvas which is it's main use. It is only just acceptable printing black and white. I ordered a new Epson 8 colour stylus Pro 44" machine before Christmas for my new art gallery due to open at the end of February. Pity you don't live closer, the opening looks to be interesting if nothing else. I hired one of these machines last year and although they are up there with the Canon for running cost, they produce museum quality output with permanence no one else is claiming for pigment ink printers. This printer outputs B &W as close to a darkroom print as is possible to get. Which is why I ordered it. The real problem with dye printers is not the lasting quality on photo papers but the terrible way discolouration takes place if you don't coat canvas after it's printed with some quite expensive and very toxic coating. The cheap ink (as in 30% the cost of Canon ink) is quickly eroded by the additional work and cost of treating finished canvas. Nothing wrong with the photo paper output, just canvas. Basically I'm saying there is no one printer which will suit every purpose. There is a horrifying cost attached to all this too. I think at this point, there is only print speed left to improve. I can live with slow but I have a problem living with obsolescence every couple of years. My Ilford Ciba processor is 18 years old. Sure it's had so many upgrades it has no resemblance to the original but I can still get prints from it that the likes of Epson can only hope to produce... When I can get paper! The Sherpa cost $16,000 and lasted 20 months. before something better (more reliable?) came along. If we could just settle on a quality break, there would be no reason to need a 300% margin just to afford obsolesce. Photographers could once again afford their prints. When you put a Sherpa print against one from my Canon, the Sherpa print looks quite dull. Look to your mail box next week and I'll send you some statistics on print costs and amortisation. > : Hey, side discussion; are you still running that AGFA Sherpa? Some > : replacement? If you don't mind me asking, what sort of cost per page, or [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > it - or canvas which is it's main use. It is only just acceptable printing > black and white. I think you are the first person I have heard of using the Canon W8400. While Canon support for photography gear at the professional level is good in many parts of the US, service access for their new wide format printers is almost non-existent. Thanks for the feedback on this. > I ordered a new Epson 8 colour stylus Pro 44" machine before Christmas for > my new art gallery due to open at the end of February. Pity you don't live [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > is claiming for pigment ink printers. This printer outputs B &W as close to > a darkroom print as is possible to get. Which is why I ordered it. I know two people running these locally, though neither is really doing the prints as a business. Switching inksets to do B/W seems to waste lots of ink, which is disappointing. I noticed on one discussion board that a place in Los Angeles running these has one set just to do B/W, and another just to do colour. > The real problem with dye printers is not the lasting quality on photo > papers but the terrible way discolouration takes place if you don't coat > canvas after it's printed with some quite expensive and very toxic coating I have been using such coating since I got into doing artwork. These are quite common for illustration work. We use to always have a spray booth outside, and wear a mask . . . nice stuff. . > The cheap ink (as in 30% the cost of Canon ink) is quickly eroded by the > additional work and cost of treating finished canvas. Nothing wrong with > the photo paper output, just canvas. Basically I'm saying there is no one > printer which will suit every purpose. There is a horrifying cost attached > to all this too. If the ColorSpan printers (by McDermid) are available in Australia, you might try contacting them. Of all the samples I received in the last year, the prints off ColorSpan printers are easily the ones that stand out. They sent me a couple samples too that were on canvas; I have one that has been sitting in direct sunlight for eight months, and it is no different than the one kept in the shade. > I think at this point, there is only print speed left to improve. I can live > with slow but I have a problem living with obsolescence every couple of [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Look to your mail box next week and I'll send you some statistics on print > costs and amortisation. Thanks. Just so I have something to share, this is an industry site for large printing: <http://www.bigpicture.net> I have been getting their magazine for the last six months. Very interesting cost analysis sometimes, and good outlook on industry trends and developments. I am hoping more to specialize, since there are already too many players in the local market doing huge work. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> Dear sir, I am a student of film & televion institute , and i would like to know about digital color correction, digital intermediate and related process to attain more knowledge in film making. I truley beleive that you would help me regarding this matter. kindly do the needful at the earliest. Thanking you , Arjun > I am a student of film & televion institute , and i would like to know > about digital color correction, digital intermediate and related > process to attain more knowledge in film making. I truley beleive that > you would help me regarding this matter. kindly do the needful at the > earliest. Do your own homework >> I am a student of film & televion institute , and i would like to know >> about digital color correction, digital intermediate and related [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Do your own homework Answers to each of your questions are located here: http://www.google.com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.