Natl Geographic on the digital revolution

Discussion in 'Photography' started by Mike Kohary, Mar 13, 2005.

  1. Mike Kohary

    BillB Guest

    The villagers that chased your family from under the bridge?
     
    BillB, Mar 18, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Mike Kohary

    Scott W Guest

    Man Unspam, you have more problems with digital cameras then anybody
    else I know. I don't know of anyone else who has had a CF card fail.
    I did have a film camera fail, the shutter was not opening all the way
    with the result that 5 rolls of film shot that were junk.
     
    Scott W, Mar 18, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Mike Kohary

    rufref Guest

    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
     
    rufref, Mar 18, 2005
  4. Mike Kohary

    Scott W Guest

    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
     
    Scott W, Mar 18, 2005
  5. Mike Kohary

    chrlz Guest

    By the way, here are some DIRECT QUOTES from Unspam on the 1DS thread..

    Unspam>I am a professional wedding photographer
    Unspam>On the camera I use the portrait setting
    Peter> Then you are the first professional I hear of that
    Peter> does not use the T/A/M settings.
    Unspam>The T/A/M setting? I read the manual and that wasn't in it.

    I thought you said *I* was lying, Unspam?

    Unspam> As I stated before, I don't change any colour settings
    Unspam> so they should not pose a problem because they are
    Unspam> unchanged from the camera to the lab.
    Unspam> The lab also print my colour negs and they are fine.
    Unspam> All I want to do is take the shot, crop it and print it,
    Unspam> like I do with film.

    Like I said, he thinks his digital is magic, and that his digicam
    should include all that his developing lab does for him. But later, he
    changes his tune a little..

    Unspam>I am very experienced with Photoshop and am
    Unspam> qualified to a high national standard in that discipline

    Bwahahhahhah!!!

    Unspam> I mainly use curves to adjust the contrast etc.

    Mmm. Proof positive that he is an eggspert. Next he will tackle
    `layers`..

    Unspam>I cut out the monitor calibration by not adjusting
    Unspam>the colours on screen, so the profile is the sRGB
    Unspam>profile embedded in the file from the camera.
    Unspam>The printer (Fuji Frontier) is also sRGB so there
    Unspam>shouldn't be a problem, should there?

    Sigh. When helpful folks tried to explain the concept of color
    management in a little more detail and point out the problems in his
    approach, he didn't want to discuss this stuff any more...

    Unspam>I think I know what the problem is, I am a photographer
    Unspam>and you are all technicians. I think I will forgo the 'digital
    Unspam>revolution' and stick with film, I'll be selling my 1ds
    Unspam>because I simply don't have the time or inclination
    Unspam>(not to mention the expense) for colour management
    Unspam>workflow solutions

    So there you have it in a nutshell. He wants a digital camera to be
    his camera, his lab, and in particular the guy at his lab that already
    probably spends hundreds of hours trying to fix up his crap exposures..
    and often failing, eg here:

    http://www.theweddingphotographers.com/Resources/CNV00044.jpg

    Could he have got more contrast if he tried??? More burnt highlights
    or lost shadow detail? Has he heard of using *any* sort of fill (even
    someone wearing a white shirt would have done wonders..)? Does he
    claim this sort of shot is a `grab` shot, and can't be properly set up?
    Like I said, if I came back from a wedding with that shot, I would
    hang my head in shame. The vast majority of wedding photos are NOT
    grab shots - you have plenty of time to setup most images, and the
    camera should always be ready for the candids that occur, and if you
    are kidding yourself that you are some sort of journalist or reporter,
    well, you are just excusing your poor photography.

    It's simple Unpsam - you CAN'T bluff your way out of this. You bought
    a digital on a whim, and it has completely caught you out by showing
    how little you know of your `craft`, and how much you rely on your lab.
    For God's sake forget digital, go back to film, stop pretending that a
    2-hour hobby course on basic Photoshop means you are educated to a
    'high national standard'.. and by all means keep on shooting those
    weddings. I'm sure there are plenty of folk being born in London who
    think your stuff is just great, and that is fine.

    By the way, if you keep rotating those images, why are the second and
    third pages still the same - it's only the ones I criticised that are
    gone.. (gotta love that cake photo on P.3, by the way!!)

    http://www.theweddingphotographers.com/Resources/041.jpg

    Yes, another challenging `grab` shot. They *are* very tricky, aren't
    they.
     
    chrlz, Mar 19, 2005
  6. Mike Kohary

    chrlz Guest

    In ten years of wedding photography, I had two MF camera breakdowns
    (ok, because we always kept a second body with us), and on two separate
    occasions, a full roll of film was either lost, or misprocessed by the
    lab - NOT ok. But this was 220 film, so that's not a lot of shots out
    of a wedding, and in both cases the images lost were not critical,
    thankfully..

    In three years of digital imaging, I have not lost a single image.
    Firstly, I do not use microdrives - they are too big, therefore the
    potential for loss is too great. Much better to use several smaller
    cards. I have had *one* card problem, but I recovered all files just
    using a free file recovery program.

    Only a moron would use the technology in a way that there was risk of
    losing huge amounts of data. So who was it that had this problem
    again?

    (O;
     
    chrlz, Mar 19, 2005
  7. Mike Kohary

    Moose Guest

    You're old enough to be married??

    If that's true, you're also old enough to know better than to irritate
    others for your own entertainment.

    Moose
     
    Moose, Mar 24, 2005
  8. Mike Kohary

    Moose Guest

    First of all, you assume all photographers give up technique when they
    move to digital. That's just wrong. Even if they did "fix it in the
    mix", who cares? Fixing digital is an art, too, since the quality of the
    results is subject to opinion.

    Different tools, same art form.

    Moose
     
    Moose, Mar 24, 2005
  9. Mike Kohary

    Solo Guest

    Look it is easy to understand that with film one might have more cost in
    processing just to see a result with digital one does not have this worry
    any longer. I have been a professional photographer for 20 years and have
    always used film, but got to say I have converted to digital and just love
    it. I can shoot more photojournalistic at my weddings without worrying about
    so much cost. The darkroom is on my computer with PhotoShop CS, so have done
    away with long hours spent souping film and paper. So the difference is
    digital is better and people who knock it just do not understand the
    computer and or digital processes.

    SOLO
     
    Solo, Mar 25, 2005
  10. Mike Kohary

    UC Guest

    We do understand, and we also can see. We can see that digital images
    suck, that skin looks like vinyl, and that fine detail is missing.
     
    UC, Mar 25, 2005
  11. Mike Kohary

    Lisa Horton Guest

    When the 3MP D30 came out, a few thought it as good as slide film, but
    just a few. With each new generation, the number that feel digital is
    as good as film has grown. As we look at the state of things today, we
    must realize that this state is just a moment in time, a transitory
    state. Digital will continue to get better, at some point it will
    probably stop being arguably better than film. Although that's an
    assumption, I think it's well based.

    It is still true that for the price of the cheapest new DSLR, one can
    purchase a complete 4x5 kit that will produce quality that's several
    orders higher than the best DSLR. As long as that's true, and there's a
    demand for that quality, film won't be truly dead.

    But that day may come, we may see affordable consumer DSLRs that exceed
    the quality of the best films in 35mm, and perhaps even medium format.

    As for my position, the DSLRs I have now are "good enough" for what I'm
    doing right now, and now that the ancillary items are long amortized,
    the cost savings of digital are compelling. And, when I do work for
    money, the customers always want digital files, always. But I don't
    think that my DSLRs match the quality possible with the best 35mm films,
    although they do match the quality of my favorite, somewhat grainy,
    films.

    Lisa
     
    Lisa Horton, Mar 25, 2005
  12. Mike Kohary

    Owamanga Guest

    Owamanga, Mar 25, 2005
  13. Mike Kohary

    Scott W Guest

    Whereas 4x5 cameras produce great photos their use is limited. They
    are really only suited for use with a tripod and fairly wide angle
    shots. And the resolution they have is a bit of a waste unless you are
    going to make prints larger then 8 x 10.

    There are different levels when talking about when a digital camera
    will meet or exceed 35mm in quality. Because the image is so clean a
    photo from my Nikon 995 (3MP) it will produce better looking 4 x 6
    prints then what I was getting from my 35mm SLR. At 8 x 10 the prints
    from the Nikon look better, if view from a couple of feet, when view
    closely the 35mm print will show more detail and look sharper. So in
    this case where produces better photos depends on just what you are
    doing with the photos. My 20D makes better looking 8 x 10 prints then
    I have ever seen from a 35mm film camera, and with it there is no point
    in my shooting 35mm film ever again.

    I know you were talking about affordable consumer DSLRs but looking at
    the high end pro cameras give a view of the comsumer cameras that we
    will see in a few years.

    A 1Ds Mark II will produce prints that are very similar to a MF camera,
    but with an advantage of using shorter lenses.

    For most people the 1Ds ended all questions about digital meeting the
    quality of 35mm, but if anyone tries to say that a 1Ds Mark II does not
    exceed 35mm then there will never be a digital camera, no matter how
    good, that they would admit beats a 35mm.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Mar 25, 2005
  14. Mike Kohary

    chrlz Guest

    That's an interesting catch, Owa... So, UC is actually Michael
    Scarpitti.

    It appears the UC character appeared in 2004 over in
    rec.photo.equipment.large-format, when his Scarpitti persona did
    exactly the same sort of ridiculous posturing over there. There's a
    good example in `Absolute beginner needs advivce` (sic), wherein not
    only can you see UC trying to pretend he is not Michael, but he also
    talks of his alleged migration to Leica. As for his work, the only
    gallery I can find is that Ilford one, which pretty well sums up his
    abilities - nice grain, Michael, pity about the images.. And there's
    nothing like creating an alter ego when you need help..

    Do a Google Image search, and all that turns up is an eco-terrorist..
    (heheh, I wonder...). If you are really interested in finding out
    more, try the thread in rec.photo.darkroom called `OT: Odd of me to
    post this but...`

    And before anyone calls me hypocritical because I don't post my work -
    I don't have a full webpage up at the moment, but here's a gallery of
    shots I took during my first encounter with a Sony F828 - they were all
    taken within an hour, down at the local marina. I wanted to see how
    the default settings handled trying conditions, hence a few of them
    have exposure issues (burnt highlights).

    http://community.webshots.com/album/131033374bWiBJm

    Flame away.
     
    chrlz, Mar 25, 2005
  15. Mike Kohary

    UC Guest

    The image you linked to is an enlarged, cropped VERY small section. It
    says so on the page:

    "Cropped section of Neopan 400 negative."

    And yes, the baby shot sucks. The skin looks lifeless, like vinyl.
     
    UC, Mar 26, 2005
  16. Mike Kohary

    UC Guest

    Am I under some obligation to post images for others' benefit? I don't
    think so.
     
    UC, Mar 26, 2005
  17. Mike Kohary

    UC Guest

    UC, Mar 26, 2005
  18. Mike Kohary

    Guest Guest

    Guest, Mar 26, 2005
  19. Mike Kohary

    UC Guest

    Bad example of what? What are you talking about?
     
    UC, Mar 26, 2005
  20. Mike Kohary

    Scott W Guest

    You are kidding right, this photo looks good to your eyes? this is the
    photo that you think makes a digital photo look bad? This photo is
    just over 2 MP and looks like crap, my old 3.2 MP Nikon would blow this
    photo out of the water.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Mar 26, 2005
    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.