Considerations About Digital...what's the hype????

Discussion in 'Photography' started by Geyser, Feb 25, 2004.

  1. Geyser

    Geyser Guest

    I don't understand the hype about digital photography...
    Are Our beloved memories bound for the trash???

    Some facts about digital....
    1) it is not archival
    2) Has no latitude
    3) It's hard to print

    1) with today's means, our memories are going to be ruined because of
    decay at best in a dozen years....remember to back up every few years,
    just to be sure

    2) It's difficult to expose, at least compared to film. It's comparable
    to slide...(only in exposing) but how many people can shoot slide?

    3) You took a shot of your wife....so beatiful to make a poster, yeah
    right. Unfortunally you had the camera on medium res., can't print more
    than 5x7....bum! If you were lucky enough to have everything right and
    now you're thinking of printing at home, but you don't have your monitor
    calibrated, and spend three hours trying to get a decent print of the
    beatiful shot, not mentioning the two packs of high quality glossy paper
    (20$) you wasted

    I think the industry did an execellent job at promoting bull....
    Are we such big suckers?
     
    Geyser, Feb 25, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Geyser

    longshot Guest

    Its' more about wanting something "now" with no wait. you need to send
    pictures of the kids to the grandparents??? click, plug,click, done.
    have some junk in the garage & want to put it on ebay? click, plug,click,
    done.
    the pictures aren't really for printing, they are for sharing via PCs. I
    actually think everyone should have both.
    JMO
    Rob
     
    longshot, Feb 25, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Geyser

    John O. Guest

    I feel kind of bad for you. If you feel that way now, you are really going
    to hate what the future holds.

    1. You can get archival prints just like you can with film. And while you
    may not consider a given storage medium archival you have to see that until
    the day comes when we do have an archival medium you can make losses copies
    of files. You can't make losses neg/slide dupes.

    2. "No latitude" is an exaggeration. Most films have a better exposure
    latitude for now..... but that is going to change. Fuji is making great
    progress. So is Nikon.

    3. Hard to print? No it's not. I submit to you that it is easier than
    printing in a wet darkroom. Printing has always been a separate art. Just
    because the average person can now afford the tools to do it on their
    desktop doesn't mean they are going to be good at it. It takes study and
    practice, just like it did in the traditional darkroom. But it is certainly
    not harder.... in my opinion. And this kind of thing is very subjective.
    Just because you think it is hard doesn't mean everyone does.

    3b. Are you telling me you never wasted any paper trying to get a print
    right in a darkroom? Bullshit. Don't have the monitor calibrated? Well,
    you have to cal the dicro head on you color enlarger. And make sure the
    temp is right in the trays. AND make sure the chemicals are mixed right.
    Use old or improperly mixed chemicals and your results will NOT be archival.
    Had the res. set too low?? Come on, man. Give me a break. That is just a
    matter of knowing how your tools work. I remember a guy that kept leaving
    the darkslide in his film magazine. But we didn't use that as an excuse to
    condemn medium format cameras.


    If you don't come around and embrace some of the new technologies and
    methods, you are going to be a very unhappy photographer.

    John O.
     
    John O., Feb 25, 2004
    #3
  4. Geyser

    Alex Guest

    Most photographers with SLRs don't ever take less than a large/fine
    jpg shot. And many never take it off of RAW/TIFF. This is not a
    "problem".
     
    Alex, Feb 25, 2004
    #4
  5. Geyser

    Snowman Guest

    Grandparents ...... click, done? You must be joking.
     
    Snowman, Feb 25, 2004
    #5
  6. The jury will still be out there for quite a while (I think it
    will be out as long as film photography exists -- at some point
    in the future, people will no longer know what you're talking
    about when you tell them that photos are taken on something you
    call "film"... At that point, then the discussion will be over)

    But I do think that you got all the three points so ironically
    wrong (ironically wrong in that you're using arguments that
    are strong arguments *in favor* of digital photography, but
    use them as arguments against it... so ironic)

    I think the "consensus" (if any) is that for now, both technologies
    are sound and each have its own advantages and disadvantages, and
    neither is going to disappear for quite a while.

    Check out a long thread from several weeks ago. Go to:

    http://groups.google.com

    And type in:

    alt.photography "film cameras are going to disappear"

    (it is important that you put the quotes).

    Then, make sure you click on the link to "View complete thread"

    HTH,

    Carlos
     
    Carlos Moreno, Feb 25, 2004
    #6
  7. You can get prints made on photographic paper, just as from film. And
    prints made on some printers with the right paper and ink have been tested
    and shown to be as durable as photographic prints.
    It hasn't? You are toitally wrong on htis.
    It isn't as hard as making prints in a darkroom. And - to repeat - you can
    easily get photographic prints at about the same price as from negatives.

    You don't have to get a digital camera. Your choice. The rest of us are
    enjoying photography in new ways.
     
    Marvin Margoshes, Feb 25, 2004
    #7
  8. Geyser

    Whatevah Guest

    wow, wrong on all 3 tries.

    1. digital files can last forever, and you can make as many backups as
    you want. Just try making copies of all your negatives.

    2. get a good camera. My three year old Canon Powershot G1 still blows
    away any 35mm shot I've seen. I use prints from it for my Photography 4
    class at college, which is taught by a professional photographer. He's
    even asked me for copies of my prints.

    3. So, you'd try making a poster print from a dollar store camera? When
    you shoot at low quality, you get low quality in return. I get
    beautiful prints from my 3.1 megapixel camera. I shoot at large size,
    and maximum quality. My prints turn out better than anybody in my
    class. Cost? just 36cents for a 4*6inch 1 hour print. Those are from
    the best 1 hour shop in the area, of course, not Wal-Mart. If you want
    good prints, have them done professionally.
     
    Whatevah, Feb 25, 2004
    #8
  9. Geyser

    Snowman Guest

    Although I'm semi-digital myself (using film then scanning), and do expect
    to go fully digital in the future, how can prints be tested for such
    durability? Digital printing hasn't been around long enough to be able to
    compare it with traditional photographic prints. Is there a way of speeding
    up time?

    Peter.
     
    Snowman, Feb 25, 2004
    #9
  10. Yes, at least theoretically. Chemical processes are modeled and
    simulated. I believe the main factors in the deterioration of
    photographs is temperature and ultra-violet light exposure.

    They can model the equivalent of 50 years of average temperature
    variation and the average amount of UV exposure in such period,
    by applying extreme temperatures and large amounts of UV over a
    period of several hours (or maybe several days, or weeks, I'm
    not sure).

    So yes, they can measure what should be a good estimate of the
    deterioration over a 10 or 50 or 100 years period.

    That's one possible explanation.

    Another possible explanation would be that, hey, if they use the
    exact same paper, with the exact same chemicals, with the exact
    same process, then you don't have to wait 25 years to be able to
    tell for sure that the prints are going to last the same! :)
    (I'm not claiming that this is the case -- I'm just offering
    possible justifications that answer your question)

    Carlos
    --
     
    Carlos Moreno, Feb 25, 2004
    #10
  11. Geyser

    Infinity Guest


    Store them on a disc if you wish to keep the originals forever.

    You can also fix them up in Photoshop or some other nice program and scoot
    over to your local Walmart for some hard prints. Cost? ... hardly nothing.

    Not your style? Well you can also take the card out of the camera and scoot
    over to Walmart or a photo store and they will place the card in a cute
    machine and voila!!! Kick out some hard prints directly from the card.

    If you enjoy processing your prints in a darkroom; then go ahead and have
    fun.
    If you enjoy processing your prints on the computer; go ahead.

    Whatever you do, go take some pictures and have fun doing it.

    Digital photos do make placing a few shots into my newsletters soooooo much
    easier than the scanner with hard prints.

    I still enjoy both mediums (film and digital) at present. I do realize the
    day is coming when film will go the way of 33 and 45 records. (Not to mention
    8 tracks)
     
    Infinity, Feb 25, 2004
    #11
  12. Geyser

    Mark P. Guest

    Funny. There is still a huge amount of music which is vinyl release only...

    ....most of which is digitally produced.

    M.
     
    Mark P., Feb 26, 2004
    #12
  13. Geyser

    Mark P. Guest

    I think there'll be a lot of very unhappy photographers with obselete
    digital
    cameras they paid thousands for...

    M.
     
    Mark P., Feb 26, 2004
    #13
  14. Geyser

    Alex Guest

    As an example, many photographers with a 4 megapixel 1D are still
    happy with it. Some may upgrade to the Mark II version but others are
    happy with that camera as the 4 MPs are enough for them and all they
    really need is the 8 shots/second and the quality build.
     
    Alex, Feb 26, 2004
    #14
  15. Geyser

    Mark P. Guest

    Of course you're right (my post was meant to be tongue-in-cheek).
    In fact, that's exactly the central point. Most photographers are
    doing it for fun. To them, it's about what they like doing. I like
    experimenting with the characteristics of different films. I like
    grainy black and white films. I know I can do similar things digitally
    in photoshop or whatever, but I don't find that fun. Plain and simple.
    It's not necessarily about the final result. If it was, everybody would
    shoot something like Velvia on medium format or larger (how does that
    compare to a 4 MP shot?)

    Viva la difference!

    M.
     
    Mark P., Feb 26, 2004
    #15
  16. Geyser

    John O. Guest

    Of course you're right (my post was meant to be tongue-in-cheek).
    Ahh. Yes. But my reply to the original poster didn't list a bunch of false
    facts about film, as his did about digital. I still shoot film. I started
    on film like most everyone else. My favorite tools were an old F2 and
    Kodachrome 25. But those days are fast coming to an end. And the poor
    fellow is obviously in denial.

    John O.
     
    John O., Feb 26, 2004
    #16
  17. Geyser

    Infinity Guest

    I know Mark but ask a fifteen year old about lps and such and watch the neat
    look on his or her face. Oh, well life goes on.
     
    Infinity, Feb 28, 2004
    #17
  18. I know a professional portrait photographer who uses an older 4 MP SLR
    then PhotoShops the hell out of it. He pumps the resolution way up then
    uses the blur tool like a maniac. He prints full sizes portraits at like
    24" x 36" and they look great. Clients fly him all over the world to do
    their family portraits. I asked him if he was wanting to upgrade to one
    of the new 6 or 8 MP cameras. He said he didn't need it. It's the post
    processing that is the secret. Most good film photographers plan for
    extensive darkroom work when they take their shot. But anti-digital guys
    seem to expect the file to be perfect and ready for poster printing as
    soon as it is downloaded off of the camera.
     
    Grant Robertson, Feb 28, 2004
    #18
  19. I've been insisting on how 6MP (3000 x 2000) is more than enough
    for a *very high* quality print at 30x20 -- without much (or almost
    any) post-processing... But no-one seems to believe me :)

    4MP gives you 80 DPI at 30x20, and about 70 DPI at 36x24, which is
    more than enough actual visual information for a high quality print.

    The guy is over-hyping what he does. It really is no big deal; it
    is trivial and straightforward mathematics that an accountant (or
    even a Manager!) could easily understand :) -- it's not blur
    control, it's simply re-sampling with anti-alias.

    In fact, I recently did a test when ordering prints from an online
    service (Future Shop, in Canada), and the machines they use already
    do this automatically -- I sent them an image at 640x480 (half a
    megapixel) and ordered a 6x4 print; I took the exact same image,
    re-sampled it at 1920x1440 (resampled to three times the size),
    with anti-alias, and ordered a print of the same size. The two
    prints are not distinguishable. But if I print a 640x480 with
    my printer and the usual printer drivers, it would look like crap
    (it would have a horrible pixelated look).

    I wonder if nowadays the normal printer drivers for commercial,
    100$ color printers already do that when configured to print
    photographic images. I would not be surprised.

    Carlos
    --
     
    Carlos Moreno, Feb 29, 2004
    #19
  20. While I can't argue with your math (mostly since I don't feel like
    calculating it myself) I do have to say that this guy's massive use of
    the blur tool did make quite a difference. He did a demo for our
    photography club. He had used PhotoShop's record feature to record all
    the changes he made to one of his photographs. He then played that back
    in high speed. It still took about 10 minutes. Then he swapped back and
    forth between the original and finished product. It made quite a
    difference. Now, his work is primarily portraiture and he is going for
    the total soft focus look so this works great for him. He has complete
    control of exactly how much 'soft focus' to apply to each and every pixel
    of the image.
    I have yet to learn how to really get the best print out of my Epson
    Stylus Color 1520. The ones I have tried have turned out muddy and not
    nearly as high res as I would have thought. Broderbund keeps trying to
    get me to buy their PrintShop program saying that it has a utility that
    gets the best resolution out of any printer. Since it is only $19 for
    previous customers, I am thinking about giving it a try.
     
    Grant Robertson, Mar 2, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.