 |
 | 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 / General Photo Topics / General Topics / March 2005Natl Geographic on the digital revolution
Disclaimer: this post is entirely geared to the professionals in the newsgroup. Though I'm sure there are a few people, ahem, who are going to read this as more "attacks against film in favor of digital", it is NOT intended to be that at all. It is merely commentary on the continually changing face of our industry, something we should be viewing as a positive, not a negative (no pun intended). There should be nothing threatening about noting rapid changes in the technology our industry uses, that advance that industry and make it easier to do better work. Further, this commentary is not original with me anyway, but comes straight from the pages of National Geographic Traveler. It's a 2005 issue, but I'm sorry I don't know which month it appeared (either Jan, Feb, March or April obviously). It did spur me to think about the issue on my own terms, and about what it means to me. Your mileage may, of course, vary. Anyway, when National Geographic, a standard-bearer of great journalistic photography, recognizes the trend so openly, I think that's got to say something. My comments are below the article. From the "Editor's Note" page: -------------- Pictures Then And Now Keith Bellows, editor Just three years ago, as the digital camera began to move from being a nifty new geek toy to a photographic staple, 90 percent of our photo contest entries were shot on film. This year? About 20 percent. That's an astonishing indication of how technology is transforming the photographic landscape. And this isn't just a seismic shift among amateur photographers. When I joined this magazine in 1998, our photographers couldn't conceive of shooting assignments digitally. In 2001, however, when Michael Melford covered San Diego for TRAVELER, he became the first National Geographic Society photographer to shoot an entire feature without film. "This year digital picture can match the high quality of 35mm in the way they could not before," says senior photo editor Dan Westergren. "Digital cameras now allow photographers to shoot quality pictures very quickly - eight frames a second. Within three years we'll be shooting all our stories digitally." The digital revolution has an added benefit - it has allowed the Internet to become the cominant delivery medium for pictures, and it has increased our ability to locate pictures that were previously difficult to find. "Take the old photos in this issue," says Westergren. "A decade ago we would have had to physically visit photo archives, which would have taken months and cost a fortune. And we still would never have found some of these great old shots." --------------- My comments: it's not about whether or not digital or film is "better". What is "better" anyway? That's too subjective. It's about what allows you to do your best work. Increasingly, I believe, that's going to be digital for more and more people. Despite some specious protestations we've seen here recently, digital IS faster and cheaper than film over the long haul. That fact is patently obvious. It provides better delivery mechanisms and archival possibilities. It skips all the steps involved in developing and physically transporting film around, can be instantly accessed on any computer, and instantly transported from one computer to another - hell, from one continent to another in mere minutes. It never ever degrades - the pictures I take today can be had with perfect integrity 250 years from now. Questions about media are exactly that - questions about media, not about digital photography. Media issues are a separate technical issue to be solved, not a roadblock. Digital can be indexed and searched in powerful ways you couldn't conceive of doing manually (look at how libraries have done away with the old card files and moved their catalogs onto computers - same thing applies here). Digital allows changes and improvements in both field work and post-processing workflow that are simply inconceivable with film. You can virtually "change film type" on the fly with digital, even from shot to shot if desired. You can instantly see the results of your shot, and reshoot after compensating for mistakes within seconds - no guesswork involved. Since the "film" costs nothing, you can experiment to your heart's content, taking thousands of shots at a time if you so desire. When it comes time to process, there is no delay because there is nothing to develop. The results are instantaneous and instantly accessible, ready to work on. Clients can take delivery the same day you shoot. Delivery can be made to and from any location in the world with internet access. The manipulations possible in photo editing software go far beyond the manipulations possible in a physical darkroom, and pictures that were previously doomed can be saved in digital. The quality of digital has now caught up to and even surpassed all but medium and large format film. High ISOs are virtually noise-free, especially in comparison to high ISO film. The resolution is indistinguishable, and in high-end digital cameras, surpasses that of 35mm. Color rendition is simply awesome. Is digital "better"? In all the ways described above, yeah, it is. Is my modern PC "better" than my beloved Atari 800 and Commodore Amiga computers, circa 1980 and 1988 respectively? Of course it is, but I still love my old computers, and have them set up out in the garage for occasional trips of nostalgia. I even have a typewriter out there - a manual, not an electric no less! ;) The point is, "better" does not mean the old technology "sucks". "Better" is not mutually exclusive of "still good", and does not reflect the changes in time that bring new technology that improves work and efficiency. Some people may have a preference or partiality to film, just because. But that's no excuse to continue denying the advancement of new technology, nor does such acknowledgement need to threaten your love of the old technology. Film is the typewriter and the LP of the photographic world. The writing on the wall is clear. But that's not to knock film, because there's still much to love about it. It's just that digital is now poised for dominance, and rightly so - the reasons are plentiful and compelling. Again, I know some will take all this as an "attack", but that's only because that's what they want to see. It validates their feelings about the demise of film, and gives them an outlet to express their frustration. But it's really shooting the messenger and ignoring the message. I think that energy would be better used in considering why it's so hard to let go and move on, or to acknowledge that a new technology may have taken over, but the old technology is still a personal preference, and to simply be secure in that decision and not let any insecurities take hold. To each his own, of course, but that's how I see it. Anyway, a long-winded ramble I know, but it's open to discussion. So draw up a cup of cawfee, and discuss. ;) -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > (snip) It is merely commentary on the continually > changing face of our industry, (snip) No, if it is anything at all, it could only be considered a commentary on the changing face of one aspect of this industry - photography for the print and publishing industry. Most photographers, including amateurs, portrait, wedding, and so on, are not impacted by changes in the print and publishing industry. As such, that supposed commentary says absolutely nothing about most photographers or "our" photo industry as a whole. Stewart National Geographic has always had a pretty reasonable view on digital photography, it is nice to seem them articulate their view in this piece so well. Thanks for posting this Mike. Scott >> (snip) It is merely commentary on the continually >> changing face of our industry, (snip) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >industry. As such, that supposed commentary says absolutely nothing about >most photographers or "our" photo industry as a whole. I think you're completely wrong, because the other specific industries/markets you mention are also all moving to digital. But when I said "industry", I meant the entire photographic industry taken as a whole. Your correct that Natl Geog's editorial referred to their own print industry, but what they said basically applies across the board, and my resulting commentary certainly was meant to be applied across the board. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > I think you're completely wrong, because the > other specific industries/markets you mention [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > commentary certainly was meant to be > applied across the board. Really? According to the Photo Marketing Association's 2004 Consumer Buying Report, almost 40 percent of all cameras sold in the United States last year were film cameras, with about 34 percent of all U.S. households currently owning a digital camera. http://www.pmai.org/ So, if the "entire photographic industry" is indeed "all moving to digital," as you boldly proclaim, exactly who is still buying and using all those film cameras - aliens from Venus who are outside the photographic industry? By the way, if you're not a member of the PMA or don't want to pay for the 2004 report, here is a free 2003 report that will at least support one of my claims above (the percentage of households - about 28 percent in 2003). http://www.pmai.org/pdf/2004_retailing_in_the_digital_era.pdf Stewart > Really? According to the Photo Marketing Association's 2004 Consumer > Buying Report, almost 40 percent of all cameras sold in the United States [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Stewart What I have from the Photo marketing Association says that in 2003 digital cameras first outsold film cameras and that in 2004 digital outsold by 3-1 film cameras. The number of U.S. households with digital cameras has gone from 7.9% in 2000 to 41% last year and is projected to grow to 52% this year. Film sales are dropping very fast, loosing something like 20% of its market each year. Film sales are already down to about half of what they were in 2000. It would appear that what is keeping film sales alive to a large extent is the disposable cameras. Camera stores that have been slow to embrace digital are going out of business. Costco no longer carries film SLRs. The advantages of digital over film are growing every year. At this point in time a affordable DSLR will produce a better looking print then a 35mm film camera and a top of the line DSLR will produce as good a looking print as a MF film camera. Just a few years ago it took a top of the line DSLR to match a 35mm film camera. If this trend continues in a few more years a affordable DLSR will meet the quality of a print that a MF can produce. It is getting easier each year to get your digital photos printed, more and more places are allowing you to upload your photos from home and then go into the store an hour later and pick up your prints. I remember the CPM fanatics saying that CPM would never die because of the large amount of software that was available for it, how many people today even remember what CPM was? This is sort of like saying that film will not die because of the large number of film cameras out there, this has not proven to keep an inferior technology alive in the past. People claimed that CDs would never totally replace LPs because people already had turntables. Some of the film fanatics have claimed that the growth of digital cameras is due to marketing efforts of the camera companies, I don't believe this is true. I have converted any number of people from film to digital, not with arguments and discussions of resolutions and dynamic range and noise vs. grain but by simply showing them my prints. They know what they are getting from their film cameras and they can see what I am getting from my digital camera. And then they buy a digital camera and they show their photos to their friends and on it goes. And the march of technology goes on, memory cards are getting cheaper digital cameras are getting faster and higher resolution. At this point in time digital cameras are not competing with film cameras, they have already won that battle, they are competing with other digital cameras. The advance of digital cameras looks like a relentless attack on film and the effects are as if it were, but believe me the makers of digital cameras are not worried about loosing sales to film cameras, they are worried about loosing sales to other digital cameras. But the effect on film is as if it were under attach, each year the areas where film is better suited then digital shrinks, both at the high end where there is now the 1Ds Mark II and the low end where just about every new cell phone sold has a build in digital camera. I imagine that there will be a few people shooting film for a long time to come but it is rapidly headed to being a niche area of photography. And it is not the likes of us arguing here that has any impact at all of the film vs. digital sales, the market will do what it will do regardless of what arguments are made for or against digital . And in the photography industry where are the champions of film? What companies are standing up and saying that they will not go digital? And how many bankruptcies can these few companies withstand before going out of business all together? The companies that have dominated the film camera market are all going digital. It is always interesting to watch as an old technology is replaced with a new one, there are always those who hate the change and claim the change will never happen. And people like to believe that if enough enlightened people stay with the old technology it will not die out, and yet the old technologies often do die out. Solid state has in fact replaced tube, CDs have replaced LPs, Camcorders replaced 8mm movie cameras. Older technology can live with newer ones in some cases, television did not make radio go away, photography did not put an end to painting. An older technology can survive if it fills a different need then the new technology, it is hard to watch TV while driving to work for instance. But digital cameras fill the same need as film cameras do, this does not look good for the long term prospects for film. Scott "Scott W" posted: "... Costco no longer carries film SLRs. ..." Not true in Southern California. My local Costco (#479) has both Canon and Minolta low-end film SLRs ... last time I looked. > > Really? According to the Photo Marketing Association's 2004 > Consumer [quoted text clipped - 112 lines] > > Scott > "Scott W" posted: > "... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Not true in Southern California. My local Costco (#479) has both Canon and > Minolta low-end film SLRs ... last time I looked. When was the last time you looked? They where pulled out of our Costco about two months ago. Scott > I remember the CPM fanatics saying that CPM would never die > because of the large amount of software that was available for it, > how many people today even remember what CPM was? I still have an old manual (copyright 1976, 1977, 1978 by Digital Research) which starts off with: > 1. INTRODUCTION. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 16k bytes of main memory with up to four IBM-computible diskette > drives. . . . The raw processing power in some of today's cameras is probably much higher than that of the largest mainframe computers used back when CP/M arrived on the scene. Even the large banks of hard disk drives in many cases had less capacity than one of today's high capacity CF and SD flash cards. > What I have from the Photo marketing Association > says that in 2003 digital cameras first outsold film [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > already down to about half of what they were in > 2000. (snip) What you failed to mention is that 2000 was a peak year for the photo industry - that total camera sales, even with both digital and film cameras added together, were down sharply in 2003 and only started showing signs of real recovery towards the end of 2004. According to PMA, the decline of film sales was not out of line with the overall industry decline and is expected to recover somewhat as the entire industry recovers. Of course, nobody, not even myself, doubts that film cameras will continue to decline as digital cameras garnish a larger share of the market. However, no industry expert from any major manufacturer, even the digital manufacturers, is projecting the end of film cameras anytime in the foreseeable future. Instead, most agree that as digital cameras reach their market satuation point sometime within the next two to three years, their growth with slow sharply and eventually level off to the market share, with both film and digital cameras continuing to share the market for many years to come. > (snip) At this point in time a affordable DSLR > will produce a better looking print then a 35mm > film camera (snip) Well, I obviously don't agree with that, but I am certainly not going to get into a subjective "which looks better" discussion that obviously cannot be proven one way or the other. The rest of your message is too long winded to allow for a quick response. Therefore, since much of it is opinion instead of undisputable fact, I'll pass on a long winded reply. Stewart it's not really "what looks better" regular old fashioned film will never go out of style...or will not go out of style until old fashioned people do! i'd like to think that there will always be at least one person who still gets satisfaction out of the old process >> What I have from the Photo marketing Association >> says that in 2003 digital cameras first outsold film [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Stewart [Nostradamus like predictions deleted] > I imagine that there will be a few people shooting film for a long time > to come... More than a few. Film best, me PS: The alt.photography gang hate it when I say film best. They first attacked me on 10/29/04 in "Camera for my Wife": http://tinyurl.com/5brkq >> I think you're completely wrong, because the >> other specific industries/markets you mention [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Really? According to the Photo Marketing Association's 2004 Consumer > Buying Report...(snip) Did you read the Natl Geog editorial I posted? Did you read their numbers? What do you think of that? Also, why did you add a silly, provocative byline to my subject header?  Signature~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > I think you're completely wrong, because the > > other specific industries/markets you mention [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Stewart I seem to have stumbled across a different version or something. If 67% of all cameras sold were digital, then how does that translate to nearly 40% film? Also, it's interesting to note the number of film cameras sold that are throwaway cardboard boxes. Hmmm.... http://www.photomarketing.com/0205_Retail.htm I think the figures should determine what group is buying what. Most everyday shooter is buying a digital because they are, in the long run, much less expensive than a film camera. This is the instant gratification group, no knock there though since I like to get my pics back ASAP. Professionals often use a digital camera to check their set-up and shoot film, so that could also account for the higher amount of digital camera's. Also, if you are going to shoot weddings, it is best to use a medium format camera rather than a 35mm or digital. Both mediums have their place. ref >> > I think you're completely wrong, because the >> > other specific industries/markets you mention [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > http://www.photomarketing.com/0205_Retail.htm > I think the figures should determine what group is buying what. Most > everyday shooter is buying a digital because they are, in the long run, much > less expensive than a film camera. This is the instant gratification group, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Both mediums have their place. > ref We are in a state of transition. For Wedding a 1Ds should be more that good enough and a 1Ds Mark II would be great but a bit over kill. On another site I got flack for saying that I thought if you where going to shoot wedding for a living you should really have at least a 1Ds, I was informed by a great many that a 10D was more then enough for wedding. I agree that 35mm is not up to wedding photography but if I was to shoot a wedding I would rather be shooting with a 20D then a MF film camera, with the 20D I can shoot at ISO 1600 when needed, I don't need to worry about loading new film every few minutes, the negatives don't need to be scanned. The idea that digital has its place but when you want a good photo you shoot film is going away, digital camera make better looking 8 x 10 prints then film. I can understand someone who has a large investment in MF film cameras and lenses not wanting to switch sooner then needed but given a choice I think you would be nuts to want to do wedding photography with a film camera instead of a digital. I see a lot of photographers here shooting wedding using the 1Ds, an expensive camera but if it is your living then well worth it. Scott After Columbus proved a ship wouldn't fall off the edge of the Earth, I bet there were people like Dwight, ignoring the facts and changes coming in travel. Is it pride or are you just having fun, when you constantly argue about this subject the way you do? Two years from now, if 75% of all photography is done on a digital camera, will you still hold the same opinions? How about five years from now and let's say 99% of all photography is done with a digital camera, will you still be this stubborn? When you have to special order your film because it is not readily available, and use one of the few nostalgic film labs to process your work, will you still be so denying of the facts in front of you? Come on Dwight! After reading all your posts in this group on the subject of the digital advancements, I am reminded of the three monkeys, one with his ears covered, the other with his eyes covered, the third with his mouth covered. Exception being the one with his mouth covered. Mike I admire how you never give up trying to enlighten Dwight. :) People >> (snip) It is merely commentary on the continually >> changing face of our industry, (snip) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Stewart > After Columbus proved a ship wouldn't fall off the edge of the Earth, I bet > there were people like Dwight, ignoring the facts and changes coming in [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > People Whereas I agree with much of what you have said in your post I need to point out that Columbus did not prove that a ship would not fall of the end of the earth, people had know for centuries that the earth was round. What Columbus did was grossly under estimate the size of the earth, which just about everybody else knew. Columbus believe it was much smaller then anyone else and therefor figure he could get to India buy going around the long way, even when he hit the Americas he was too dim to realized he had not made it all the way around. Scott Thanks for the history lesson, I knew I would get that. Ok, whomever it was, whenever it was, it was a belief that was proven wrong. >> After Columbus proved a ship wouldn't fall off the edge of the Earth, > I bet [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Scott > After Columbus proved a ship wouldn't fall off > the edge of the Earth, I bet there were people like [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > of all photography is done with a digital camera, > will you still be this stubborn? (snip) No, the reality is that I don't ignore facts as some in this newsgroup insist on doing. Just last year was the first year that digital cameras actually outsold film cameras for the first time, by a small margin. Millions of film cameras were sold last year, millions more will be sold this year, and millions more will be sold next year. That is in addition to the many millions of film cameras already in households throughout this country. Those are facts, of which, unlike some here, I have neither denied nor closed my eyes to. Considering those facts, it will likely be many years, not the two you suggest above, before "75% of all photography is done on a digital camera," and equally likely more than five years, also suggested above, before "99% of all photography is done with a digital camera." > (snip) When you have to special order your film > because it is not readily available, and use one of > the few nostalgic film labs to process your work, > will you still be so denying of the facts in front > of you? (snip) In reality, I seriously doubt anyone shopping for a camera today has to worry about film not being readily available - certainly not anytime during the lifespan of that camera anyway. > (snip) Mike I admire how you never give up trying > to enlighten Dwight. (snip) Mike isn't trying to enlighten anyone. Instead, he is a troll posting message after message in this newsgroup subtlely trashing film and film users in an effort to start arguments. Digital enthusiasts who encourage him, as you are now doing, only encourage his troll-like behavior in this newsgroup. If that is what you want, fine. But don't complain, as others have, when film users respond in kind within this same newsgroup. Stewart >> After Columbus proved a ship wouldn't fall off >> the edge of the Earth, I bet there were people like [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >and equally likely more than five years, also suggested above, before "99% >of all photography is done with a digital camera." Blinkers work in both directions it would appear: You seem to be ignoring the increase of the number of photographs taken (and subsequent increase to the number of 'keepers') associated with digital photography. Personally (albeit I had a slight lifestyle change too), the number of shots I make on digital is about 5 times higher than were made on film. 1 DLSR therefore (in my experience) outweighs an SLR by a factor of 5. I also consider a sale of a disposable camera to be an irrelevant (but significant) part of the film sales figures when doing a comparison of who's shooting what. >> (snip) When you have to special order your film >> because it is not readily available, and use one of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >worry about film not being readily available - certainly not anytime during >the lifespan of that camera anyway. It's happening, and much faster than I expected. Fuji have already announced that production of Velvia 50, a cornerstone of film will cease soon. Locally, the Minilabs are closing all over the place, although not as a direct result of digital cameras - more as a result of digital workflow & home printing technologies. For consumer film photography, the writing is on the wall. -- Owamanga! http://www.pbase.com/owamanga >>> After Columbus proved a ship wouldn't fall off >>> the edge of the Earth, I bet there were people like [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > Owamanga! > http://www.pbase.com/owamanga Film isn't made for photographers, they are small time, it's made for the movie industry where even the smallest budget movie uses more film than 100 photographers use in a year. >>> In reality, I seriously doubt anyone shopping for a camera today has to >>> worry about film not being readily available - certainly not anytime during [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >movie industry where even the smallest budget movie uses more film than 100 >photographers use in a year. Yes, I realize that, but they don't shoot films on velvia now do they? Cool, we'll all be able to make home movies on film. But getting 35mm stuff in little cans of 4ft length and getting someone to process that will only become harder and more expensive as demand drops. Actually, the distribution of movie films probably consume 5,000 times as much film as was originally shot. Fully digital cinemas are cropping up everywhere, but I don't know how much of the market is converted yet. As for production, some studios have already investigated digital. All of Pixar's animated stuff plus biggies like Star Wars Attack of the Clones were shot entirely on video. I believe a lot of American TV stuff is still shot on film, but that will change overnight as soon as they can get the same 'feel' from HD video. For *consumer* film photography, the writing is on the wall. The movie industry *will* follow, maybe 10, 20 years behind, but it's gonna happen. -- Owamanga! http://www.pbase.com/owamanga > For *consumer* film photography, the writing is on the wall. The movie > industry *will* follow, maybe 10, 20 years behind, but it's gonna [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Owamanga! > http://www.pbase.com/owamanga I think the movie industry will move away from film in the next few years, I would be surprised if it took 10 much less 20 years for them to give up totaly on film. My guess is that in 5 year it will be hard to find anyone shooting film to make movies. Scott >> For *consumer* film photography, the writing is on the wall. The > movie [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Scott In that case a lot of the movie theatres will probably go out of business because they will have to spend a fortune on digital projection equipment. >> My guess is that in 5 year it will be hard >> to find anyone shooting film to make movies. > > In that case a lot of the movie theatres will probably go out of business > because they will have to spend a fortune on digital projection equipment. That may happen even if there's no change to shooting digitally. But the current movies produced with digital cameras still manage to be shown in today's theaters having only film projectors, so I don't think dire predictions about movie theaters going out of business in 5 years is quite warranted. Transfer to film will continue as long as there's a profit to be made. >>> For *consumer* film photography, the writing is on the wall. The >>> movie industry *will* follow, maybe 10, 20 years behind, but [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >In that case a lot of the movie theatres will probably go out of business >because they will have to spend a fortune on digital projection equipment. You think mechanical film projection equipment is cheap? ...Not to mention the maintenance costs. They said that when VHS videos were invented. They said that when THX was invented. They said that when DVDs were invented. Worry not, they will find a way. Even *I* might be able to afford decent HD front-projection in the next 5 years. I certainly won't be surprised when the time comes. -- Owamanga! http://www.pbase.com/owamanga >>>> For *consumer* film photography, the writing is on the wall. The >>>> movie industry *will* follow, maybe 10, 20 years behind, but [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Owamanga! > http://www.pbase.com/owamanga I look at the movies made on film and those that are digitally messed with (star wars), are they any better? No they are not. Toy story is different because that could not exist without computers, and flash animations have a *look* about them that is recognisable but you know the old saying, if it ain't broke....... >I look at the movies made on film and those that are digitally messed with >(star wars), are they any better? No they are not. Toy story is different >because that could not exist without computers, and flash animations have a >*look* about them that is recognisable but you know the old saying, if it >ain't broke....... Attack of the Clones in particular was shot entirely on digital video tape. Yes, in my opinion, it did look better than other movies from the same year even though I wasn't able to see it in a purely digital theater. Anyway, It's happening: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/15/business/15sony.html -- Owamanga! http://www.pbase.com/owamanga > I look at the movies made on film and those that are digitally messed with > (star wars), are they any better? No they are not. Toy story is different > because that could not exist without computers, and flash animations have a > *look* about them that is recognisable but you know the old saying, if it > ain't broke....... "If it ain't broke", eh? I don't think we'll be seeing any movies that resemble flash animations, unless in some cases that's the desired effect. But movies made digitally as opposed to those chemically messed with (we could have done without such a messy allusion), one doesn't have to be "better" than the other. Even if they remain the same as far as quality is concerned, money is the force behind the change. Film is bulky and expensive to store. Directors I've heard say that on average, only 10% of the film they shoot is actually used. That's 90% that can't be reused, unless it's shot digitally. Film can't be as immediately as its digital counterpart, and digital editing is easier and quicker. All points that tend to make film more expensive to use. When I watch a movie I don't care how it was produced. If it takes 50 years for film to become obsolete it wouldn't bother me in the least. But the change will come far sooner than that, irregardless of whether you or I think that film "ain't broke" or not. >> I look at the movies made on film and those that are digitally messed with >> (star wars), are they any better? No they are not. Toy story is different [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > irregardless of whether you or I think that film "ain't broke" or > not. I'm sorry, I thought you were a photographer. If you don't care how a movie was produced then you are visually illiterate and cannot be taken seriously. BTW I said "digitally messed with", not chemically. Flash movies are regularly aired on terrestrial TV in the UK. > I'm sorry, I thought you were a photographer. If you don't care how a movie > was produced then you are visually illiterate and cannot be taken seriously. Simply more of your usual trollish absurdities. Even professional photographers might want to see a movie for their own enjoyment and not care how it was produced. Just as an author might prefer owning an original hardback, but would enjoy reading another author's work even if it's merely a paperback. > BTW I said "digitally messed with", not chemically. You enjoy wasting time stating the obvious? I guess something went over your head . . . > Flash movies are regularly aired on terrestrial TV in the UK. Full length movies or shorts? In any case, mentioning flash movies and claiming to be able to recognize their "look" is a silly way to buttress your opinion that digitally made movies are no better than those made from film. Anyone could disparage film by pointing out some of the films made from 16 mm and even a few rarer ones made with Super-8. In the meantime, continue watching flash movies. Anything that keeps you occupied in something other than clogging this newsgroup with your trollish messages is a good thing. >> I'm sorry, I thought you were a photographer. If you don't care how a movie >> was produced then you are visually illiterate and cannot be taken seriously. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > movies. Anything that keeps you occupied in something other than > clogging this newsgroup with your trollish messages is a good thing. Words of wisdom from the self appointed alt.photography spokesperson. The only thing going over my head is your hot air. Cinematography is a craft, you can learn the basics on mini DV but at some time you have to actually learn something, that's the trouble with digital, no craft. >Cinematography is a craft, you can learn the basics on mini DV but at some >time you have to actually learn something, that's the trouble with digital, >no craft. What aspects of photography can you ignore when using digital over film? I don't see how the 'craft' is gone just because you swapped a chemical sensor with an electronic one. It's 99% the same. So, the light meter is more fancy, we get a mini electronic polaroid every shot, we can switch ISO at a touch of a button. Nothing a pro can't do with his light-meter, polaroid back, or multiple bodies. Mostly, the advantages that come with digital SLRs are simply putting the tools of the pro into the hands of the amateur. This is nothing but good news for the 'craft'. To some pro's the switch to digital has had it's own set of additional complications to deal with: Correct white balance, shutter delay, moire artifacts. But for the most part, it's the same craft. ..and the dark room, yes that's changed. But film shooters have been using digital dark rooms for many years now and nobody complained it was an attack on 'the craft'. It isn't, it's in *addition* to the craft of chemical processing techniques. -- Owamanga! http://www.pbase.com/owamanga > What aspects of photography can you ignore when using digital over > film? Get out of my head! ;) Signature~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> What aspects of photography can you ignore when using digital over >> film? > > Get out of my head! ;) Mike, I say we let Owamanga into the "GANG"! lol >>> What aspects of photography can you ignore when using digital over >>> film? >> >> Get out of my head! ;) > >Mike, I say we let Owamanga into the "GANG"! lol Just one question. Should I be wearing a red scarf or a black one? - or maybe 18% gray... -- Owamanga! http://www.pbase.com/owamanga >> Cinematography is a craft, you can learn the basics on mini DV but at some >> time you have to actually learn something, that's the trouble with digital, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I don't see how the 'craft' is gone just because you swapped a > chemical sensor with an electronic one. It's 99% the same. When you're shooting film it is done with more care and forethought, with digital you just keep your finger on trigger and fix it in the mix. > So, the light meter is more fancy, we get a mini electronic polaroid > every shot, we can switch ISO at a touch of a button. Nothing a pro [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Owamanga! > http://www.pbase.com/owamanga > When you're shooting film it is done with more care and forethought, with > digital you just keep your finger on trigger and fix it in the mix. Now it becomes clear why you were not getting good photos from the 1Ds. Try again, but this time put as much time and care into the shot as you do for film, who knows you might get a good photo. So, why to you think that you don't have to put time and care into taking the photo just because you are using a digital camera? Are you trying to tell us that somehow a digital camera does not need the same kind of care that a film one does, if so this has not been my experience. Could you tell us what you do when shooting film that you did not do when you shot with the 1Ds? Are you really trying to tell us that you did not put in as much are and forethought when you shot digital? Scott >> When you're shooting film it is done with more care and forethought, > with [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Scott No, you know exactly what I am saying you are just being facetious deliberately. A film records light differently to a chip and doesn't have a delete button. I take exactly the same care using a digital camera as I do with a film camera but the results are not comparable. End of story > >> When you're shooting film it is done with more care and forethought, > > with [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > delete button. I take exactly the same care using a digital camera as I do > with a film camera but the results are not comparable. End of story But what you said was "When you're shooting film it is done with more care and forethought" but now you are saying "I take exactly the same care using a digital camera as I do with a film camera". So what is it, you take care with the digital camera but nobody else does? I think you can see where this might leave people wondering just what you meant. You talked about the craft in using a film camera and several people have asked what craft that is used with a film camera that is not used with a digital camera, and so far you have not said. Your statment BTW was "that's the trouble with digital, no craft." Well some of us do believe that there is craft to digital photography and are surprised that you would think otherwise and would kind of like to hear what part of the craft of photography that you ignore when you are shooting digital. Scott > Your statment BTW was "that's the trouble with digital, no craft." > Well some of us do believe that there is craft to digital photography > and are surprised that you would think otherwise and would kind of like > to hear what part of the craft of photography that you ignore when you > are shooting digital. You'll probably get nowhere with Unspam, who seems to be locked into his trollish chain-yanker mode. But I could be wrong. Perhaps his insight and logic suffers when he has to use this newfangled digital message creation and delivery system known as usenet. If he lovingly crafted his messages using stone or wood blocks, his true genius might finally be recognized. But until then, trying to reason with him will only be an exercise in futility. > > Your statment BTW was "that's the trouble with digital, no craft." > > Well some of us do believe that there is craft to digital photography [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > genius might finally be recognized. But until then, trying to > reason with him will only be an exercise in futility. I am still trying to figure out just what he (Unspam)is, I don't think he is simply a troll, like "me" clearly is, but he sure seems frustrated with digital photography. In one thread he said that he liked digital photography, I guess now he does not like it as much. I really find it odd that someone who clearly does not like digital photography would have spent the money for a 1Ds, but he doesn't like to talk about that much so I try not to bring it up to often. Scott >>> Your statment BTW was "that's the trouble with digital, no craft." >>> Well some of us do believe that there is craft to digital [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Scott Is this a digital photography group? You are a small clique that would like it to be so but I don't agree with you so live with it. > Is this a digital photography group? You are a small clique that would like > it to be so but I don't agree with you so live with it. This is a photography group and as such deal with all aspects of photography. As photography become more and more dominated by digital cameras you can expect that they will be the topic of discussion here very often. But much of photography is independent of the capture medium and applies to both film and digital photography. For many of us these are exciting times, a new industry it growing and it give us opportunities to expand our love of photography. Being able to crank up the ISO to 800 without a worry is a great feeling. For me being able to catalog my photos in a meaningful way it a big plus, this has always be a problem with my film photos. It is interesting to watch the transition from film to digital, National Geographic is part of that transition. The new innovations in photography are pretty much all now digital, there has not been much change in film photography over the last few years. And we not have control over our photo, not some lab tech, this is huge. Digital photography has gotten a whole new batch of people excited about photography who were not before , this to me is a good thing. But some people prefer a more static world, if it was good enough 20 year ago it should be good enough now. They get upset when things start to change and the fast things are changing the more upset they get. In some cases they deny that the change is even occurring. Scott >> Is this a digital photography group? You are a small clique that > would like [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Scott How did National Geographic ever survive without digital? Do you mean all of those superb pictures we remember were all done on old fashioned film? How quaint. Here's a thing, go to a place where there is no electricity and take your digital camera with you, maybe a rain forest and see how you get on. > How did National Geographic ever survive without digital? > Do you mean all of those superb pictures we remember were > all done on old fashioned film? How quaint. If you're trying to create a straw man at least give him a couple of legs to stand on. Who here hasn't acknowledged or doesn't believe that film has, and is still capable of producing superb results? Just because digital photography has is able to produce images of comparable quality along with other advantages unattainable with film in no way invalidates or denigrates what National Geographic produced before embracing digital photography. Implying that that's what some of us (even one?) believe is pure sophistry. > Here's a thing, go to a place where there is no electricity and take your > digital camera with you, maybe a rain forest and see how you get on. About as well as well as any photographer would, whether they use digital or film. Batteries sufficient to take many thousands of shots would probably represent a very small fraction of the photographic gear portaged into the rain forest. My current Nikon film camera also relies on batteries to function. My first Nikon (the F) as well as many rangefinders of that era could take pictures indefinitely in a rain forest. But assuming that you'd be staying there for an extended period, such as 6 months to a year, an adequate supply of batteries and flash cards would occupy far less bulk than the equivalent number of film canisters, and would be able to handle the heat and humidity far better than film, not being subject to the degradation that exposed but undeveloped film would suffer over time. Here's a thing Un-man, go stand in a corner and repeat "I will not post messages before engaging brain" until the light comes on. :) >> How did National Geographic ever survive without digital? >> Do you mean all of those superb pictures we remember were [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > bulk than the equivalent number of film canisters, and would be able > to handle the heat and humidity far better than film, I think not, unless you can afford a 1ds which has O rings and a huge heavy battery and charger, and nowhere to plug it in, and no 'user serviceable' parts. not being > subject to the degradation that exposed but undeveloped film would > suffer over time. Bullshit, you don't need *any* batteries in a Hasselblad and even an F3 had a manual shutter back up. The batteries in a DSLR camera weigh as much as some of my rangefinders. That doesn't include the actual chargers either. > Here's a thing Un-man, go stand in a corner and repeat "I will not > post messages before engaging brain" until the light comes on. :) > Bullshit, you don't need *any* batteries in a Hasselblad and even an F3 had > a manual shutter back up. The batteries in a DSLR camera weigh as much as > some of my rangefinders. That doesn't include the actual chargers either. Taking a Hasselblad into the rain forest will quickly show the derivation of at least the first part of its name. And it would require triple the tonnage of film. DSLR batteries weigh no more in a rain forest than they do in less tropical climes. And you contradict yourself. Nobody would bring chargers either, since the whole idea was to bring enough batteries to last until returning from the rain forest, which presumably wouldn't permit recharging. If you now admit that AC and chargers fit in with the forest, then the weight of all of those batteries that bent your back so wouldn't be needed, resulting in a modest net saving in bulk and weight. But inconsistency is your hallmark, recalling that you said: > Here's a thing, go to a place where there is no electricity and take your > digital camera with you, maybe a rain forest and see how you get on. I mean, why would you need to mention the additional weight of chargers if there's no electricity for them to use? The answer is clear. You argue for the sake of arguing, and owing to a poor memory, get tripped up by your own inconsistent arguments. > How did National Geographic ever survive without digital? Do you mean all of > those superb pictures we remember were all done on old fashioned film? How > quaint. Here's a thing, go to a place where there is no electricity and take > your digital camera with you, maybe a rain forest and see how you get on. Buy you see life moves on, at least for most of us. Yes National Geographic did get great photos without digital, but they see that photography is changing and they intent to be part of the change. As for photographing in places with out electricity, is this what you think it going to keep the photographic industry from going to digital? You really believe that this would have any significant impact of say that amount of film sold? I get a lot of photos from one battery, over a 1000, that's the same as 28 rolls of 36 exposure film, the battery takes up about as much space as one roll of film. I have two batteries and always have a spare with me, how many times have I needed to use the spare so far? none. I have watched over the last 10 years as the barriers to going to digital photography have been constantly lowered. We are now at a point that for most people digital fills their needs better then film. So lets look at what has happened in the last few years to lower this barriers. You can have your prints make just about anywhere. Sensitivity has gone up, we are able to shoot at 1600 and even 3200 iso and still get good prints. Resolution has gone up. Size of compact flash has gone up while the price has gone down. The price of hard drives has dropped to the point that storing photos is next to nothing. DVD burners have become cheap so backups are easy. Shutter lag as gone down. Battery life is so good that it is not an issue. When I bought my first digital camera one of the questions that I got asked a lot was "but where are you going to have your prints made?" It has now gotten to be far easier to get digital prints made then film. I went to Costco yesterday and used the kiosk to order a 12 x 18 inch print, it was ready in an hour, cost me $4.00. BTW I showed that print to a number of people last night and now I have to go back and get 5 more prints made. And the neat part is that this is just the beginning, prints will get cheaper yet, cameras will continue to improve. The cost will continue to go down. If you want to use film that is fine, but to deny that the world of photography is going digital just because you could not get your digital camera to work is just plan silly. Scott > Is this a digital photography group? No. If you or anyone else (even digital proponents) made inaccurate or misleading statements about film photography, or unduly criticized it, I'd respond critically to those as well. > You are a small clique that would like > it to be so but I don't agree with you so live with it. I'm already living with it. You are part of a much smaller clique that chafes at replies that expose your silliness. You may not like it, but you'll also have to live with it. > I am still trying to figure out just what he (Unspam)is, I don't think > he is simply a troll, like "me" clearly is, but he sure seems > frustrated with digital photography. In one thread he said that he > liked digital photography, I guess now he does not like it as much. No, he's nothing like "me", so there's that in his favor. But as he's constantly making provocative, often foolish statements, so obviously intentional, even going so far at as taking sides with a mutually admiring "me" in a recent thread, it's not very hard to not see him as a troll. > I really find it odd that someone who clearly does not like digital > photography would have spent the money for a 1Ds, but he doesn't > like to talk about that much so I try not to bring it up to often. Well, we're reduced to taking his word for it that he owns a 1Ds. But unless I'm mistaken he has steadfastly refused to make any of his images available, which puzzled several of the people that were willing to help him figure out what might have been causing his 1Ds problems. Exif data might have revealed more than he cared to share. Someone that *really* dislikes digital photography and wants to tear it down might criticize a well known digital camera even if he doesn't actually own one. And then it would be better from his point of view that it be a respected one, such as a 1Ds, which also has the advantage of being so expensive that few would have one, lack of familiarity making it harder to catch any errors he might make when he discusses it. Of course he may really own one, or might have access to one, but his behaviour suggests that this may not be the case. >> I am still trying to figure out just what he (Unspam)is, I don't think >> he is simply a troll, like "me" clearly is, but he sure seems [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > might have access to one, but his behaviour suggests that this may > not be the case. Sounds like some kind of envy coming through Bill but don't be jealous, it's not that good. >> Well, we're reduced to taking his word for it that he owns a 1Ds. >> . . . > > Sounds like some kind of envy coming through Bill but don't be jealous, > it's not that good. /COUTH OFF Well, as much as I'm inclined to remain mum here, your previous unsuccessful attempt to insult me by calling me a "smug twat" earns you this rejoinder: If there's any kind of envy I'm guilty of at all, it can only be penis envy, you dickhead! :) /COUTH ON >>> Well, we're reduced to taking his word for it that he owns a 1Ds. >>> . . . [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > /COUTH ON I prefer the uncouth mode, turn it back on. >> Your statment BTW was "that's the trouble with digital, no craft." >> Well some of us do believe that there is craft to digital photography [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > genius might finally be recognized. But until then, trying to > reason with him will only be an exercise in futility. Bill, you are truly a smug twat. >> But until then, trying to >> reason with him will only be an exercise in futility. >> > Bill, you are truly a smug twat. But accurate. :) As a Nicholson character once cried "You can't handle the truth!". >>> But until then, trying to >>> reason with him will only be an exercise in futility. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > But accurate. :) As a Nicholson character once cried "You can't > handle the truth!". Maybe that should be *your* truth >>>> When you're shooting film it is done with more care and > forethought, [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > Scott Do you ever use film? If the answer is no then I won't bother replying. > Do you ever use film? If the answer is no then I won't bother replying. I have shot film since 1971, including sheet negatives (use with a microscope). In the late 70s I shot a lot of 4 x 5 inch glass plates at work, but this was holography. I have shot a lot of 35mm over the years, the last time I shot film was about 6 months ago, for me I don't see myself shooting any more film. Scott > A film records light differently to a chip and doesn't > have a delete button. But all of the conceptual particulars are identical - ISO, aperture and shutter speed determine exposure, same as with film. A particular setting with a film camera will get you more or less the same result with a digital camera (of course it will always be a bit different camera to camera, regardless of their media). What does any of this have to do with "craft"? Digital doesn't make it automatic. Just because it has a preview screen and delete button, granted both of which make life easier, doesn't mean it loses "craft". Signature~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> A film records light differently to a chip and doesn't >> have a delete button. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > automatic. Just because it has a preview screen and delete button, granted > both of which make life easier, doesn't mean it loses "craft". When you say they "make life easier", you confirm what I said. You spend more time looking at the back of the camera than seeing what's going on in front of you. A problem with digital cameras is also the fact that they don't work alone, a never ending list of add ons is also required, a computer, Photoshop, RAW converters, digital media cards, upgrades, firmware, etc. With a film camera you need a camera, a film, er, that's it. As somebody said, "It looks the same, it ain't the same". >>> A film records light differently to a chip and doesn't >>> have a delete button. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >With a film camera you need a camera, a film, er, that's it. No, *you* need a Walmart. Given your attitude, your opinion makes perfect sense now. You believe the craft of photography stops when you've captured the image on the negative. In my opinion, that's just the first phase you've completed. I, and most others, prefer to see actual prints. So how to we go from negative to print... In your world: The computerized processor in a Walmart film processing machine fed by a spotty teen-urchin. In my world: A darkroom. Traditional or digital it really makes no difference. Ansel adams wrote a series of books on photography, there's a clue in his choice of titles: The Camera The Negative The Print You might want to pick up the third one and enlighten yourself. He died in '84, but if was still alive today, there would doubtless be a fourth book: The Photoshop. -- Owamanga! http://www.pbase.com/owamanga >>>> A film records light differently to a chip and doesn't >>>> have a delete button. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > In your world: The computerized processor in a Walmart film processing > machine fed by a spotty teen-urchin. Would that be you by any chance? > In my world: A darkroom. Traditional or digital it really makes no > difference. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > The Photoshop. It exists, you should read it sometime > -- > Owamanga! > http://www.pbase.com/owamanga >>> A film records light differently to a chip and doesn't >>> have a delete button. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > spend more time looking at the back of the camera than seeing what's > going on in front of you. Now you're being presumptuous, and wasting my time. That's not what I said at all. The preview screen allows me to instantly see what I took - very handy. It does not mean I pay less attention to what I'm doing when I take the shot, it means that I'm able to confirm how my exposures are turning out. > A problem with digital cameras is also the > fact that they don't work alone, a never ending list of add ons is > also required, a computer, Photoshop, RAW converters, digital media > cards, upgrades, firmware, etc. And this is not true of film photography? If you bring your film into a processor, I suppose not, but then again, I could do that with my CF cards as well. I choose not to, but it is a choice. > With a film camera you need a camera, a film, er, that's it. So for you, photography stops at pressing the button. And yet you have the balls to say that my digital photography lacks craft??? roflmao.... > As somebody said, "It looks the same, it ain't the same". Ignorance is bliss, isn't it? Signature~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >> Cinematography is a craft, you can learn the basics on mini DV but at some > >> time you have to actually learn something, that's the trouble with digital, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > When you're shooting film it is done with more care and forethought, with > digital you just keep your finger on trigger and fix it in the mix. I would hope that you're not describing your own approach to film and digital. If not, it seems a perhaps unwarranted assumption about the shooting habits of others. Once I'd realized that film & processing were actually relatively cheap, I never worried about how much film I shot. Going from that to digital I didn't really change my shooting habits. Even if a wasted shot on digital has no direct monetary cost, it does have some costs when you factor in storage and more importantly, your own time. I've found that when a similar level of craft is used, film and digital yield results of similar quality. But I have a feeling you already know that :) Lisa >>>> Cinematography is a craft, you can learn the basics on mini DV but at some >>>> time you have to actually learn something, that's the trouble with digital, [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Lisa Similar quality, explain. > >>>> Cinematography is a craft, you can learn the basics on mini DV but at some > >>>> time you have to actually learn something, that's the trouble with digital, [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Similar quality, explain. I find the phrase self explanatory, and am a bit surprised that you wouldn't. It's really quite simple: more/better craft, better photos, regardless of the capture medium. I've been a photographer for more than a couple of decades. Color films have changed a whole lot in that time. I find that my Canon DSLRs, when used with my specific techniques and approach, yield photos that look more like my favorite slide film than do photos taken on color film 30 years ago. From that perspective, the digital image isn't so different. Also, If you've ever shot medium format in a good quality camera, you may have noticed that the images are subtly, but clearly, different, with the MF image being clearly superior. Enough so that non photographers can see the difference readily in an 8x print, and often in a 4x5 print. Should I then abandon the convenience, flexibility and cost savings of 35mm? If you're old enough, you may recall discussions about the then new "miniature format" film not being good enough to "replace" roll film, although 35mm did indeed do exactly that for APPROPRIATE uses. And that's what your "film best" thing sounds a lot like, to me. The old real (roll) film vs miniature (35mm) film debate. Been there, done that. Where do you draw the line? Real photographers make their own glass plates? In the end, when DSLRs got to the point of giving me the look I wanted, they were good enough to start using. If anything, the APS sized sensors require MORE, not less, technique, IMHO. And I definitely do NOT miss easily scratched, dust magnet ND filters :) Lisa >>>>>> Cinematography is a craft, you can learn the basics on mini DV but at >>>>>> some [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > more like my favorite slide film than do photos taken on color film 30 > years ago. From that perspective, the digital image isn't so different. Does that involve spending thousands on software and even more in front of a monitor? > Also, If you've ever shot medium format in a good quality camera, you > may have noticed that the images are subtly, but clearly, different, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > "replace" roll film, although 35mm did indeed do exactly that for > APPROPRIATE uses. It probably wasn't good enough when it first arrived, just like digital. > And that's what your "film best" thing sounds a lot like, to me. The > old real (roll) film vs miniature (35mm) film debate. Been there, done [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > And I definitely do NOT miss easily scratched, dust magnet ND filters :) What about dust magnet CCD's? > Lisa > >>>>>> Cinematography is a craft, you can learn the basics on mini DV but at > >>>>>> some [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > Does that involve spending thousands on software and even more in front of a > monitor? Irrelevant to the appearance of the image, which is what we were specifically discussing. Do you care to discuss, or do you only want to throw out attempts at witty comments that reveal only an unwillingness to reasonably discuss film and digital? Does this involve the thousands of dollars I've spent on film and cameras over the years? And FYI, I already had a computer, so that's zero cost to photography. I have purchased photography specific upgrades, but they basically came out of what had previously been the film and processing budget. > > Also, If you've ever shot medium format in a good quality camera, you > > may have noticed that the images are subtly, but clearly, different, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > It probably wasn't good enough when it first arrived, just like digital. But we're not discussing digital when it first arrived, are we? Aren't we discussing digital today? Do you think that your little bon mot constitutes discussion? > > And that's what your "film best" thing sounds a lot like, to me. The > > old real (roll) film vs miniature (35mm) film debate. Been there, done [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > What about dust magnet CCD's? As it turns out, not really much of a problem. A large blower bulb pretty much takes care of it for me. Unlike the ND filters, which do NOT come completely clean and dust free with just a puff of air. Now I'll be honest with you here. My response to you was a test as much as anything else. I was curious if you were sincerely interested in discussion, or instead only interested in making obnoxious comments in service of a specific agenda. And to see if when presented with reasonable arguments, you would respond in kind, or respond by trotting out tired clichés, dissembling, and misdirection. You have given me my answer, and alas, it's not what I'd hoped for. For whatever reasons, you appear to simply dislike digital, and aren't interested in discussion, or even reasonably supporting your position. This makes any further attempts at discussion on my part unlikely. In the end, there seems no other productive alternative to simply dismissing you as someone with an agenda but no ability to advance it logically. That's unfortunate, because we're in a really interesting time right now in the technology of photography. A fundamental shift is occurring around us, one that is unprecedented, and unlikely to be repeated. And you're just sitting on the sidelines with nothing more to contribute than "boo digital!" Lisa > For whatever reasons, you appear to simply dislike digital, and aren't > interested in discussion, or even reasonably supporting your position. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > repeated. And you're just sitting on the sidelines with nothing more > to contribute than "boo digital!" Beautifully stated. Signature~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> For whatever reasons, you appear to simply dislike digital, and aren't >> interested in discussion, or even reasonably supporting your position. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Beautifully stated. You have truly found a friend >>>>>>>> Cinematography is a craft, you can learn the basics on mini DV but at >>>>>>>> some [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] > > As it turns out, not really much of a problem. A friend of mine owns a 20D and has huge problems with dust on the sensor, she had to take the camera (3 weeks old) to get cleaned. This is in London, not the Sahara. A large blower bulb > pretty much takes care of it for me. Unlike the ND filters, which do > NOT come completely clean and dust free with just a puff of air. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > discussion, or instead only interested in making obnoxious comments in > service of a specific agenda. Like pointing out facts. And to see if when presented with > reasonable arguments, you would respond in kind, or respond by trotting > out tired clichés, dissembling, and misdirection. You have given me my > answer, and alas, it's not what I'd hoped for. Which was to agree with you. > For whatever reasons, you appear to simply dislike digital, For the reasons I have already given. and aren't > interested in discussion, As long as the *dicussion* is in your favour. or even reasonably supporting your position. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message