(OT) What would it take?

"Martin Francis" writes:

So, all of you who haven't " gone digital"- what would it take?

My question is, What problem would it solve?

I've been shooting film for decades, and there are some problems with film,
but for the most part, digital doesn't solve them.

It does solve other problems. With the advent of the Web, it's cheaper to
use my Nikon CoolPix 950 or 990 or whichever, I forget, to take a snapshot
and just post it than it is to take a slide, have it developed, have it
scanned, then post it. Uh, it's quicker, too. But if it's not going on the
Web, that's not a problem, hence digital is not a solution.

So let me toss it back to you: What problem would going digital solve for
you?
--
Philip Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
Legal Assistance on the Web | spam and read later. email to philip@
http://www.PhilipStripling.com/ | my domain is read daily.

In article ,
says...
So let me toss it back to you: What problem would going digital solve for
you?

Have you really looked? Because for many photographers, digital has
solved a lot of problems:

Color. Digital produces more accurate color and allows more control
over the final output than a chemical process.

Scanning/Workflow. Scanning takes time, as does reducing the more
noticeable dust and lint that adheres to the negative/positive
transparency. Most people use Photoshop for adjusting their film
images, why bother with a lossy intermediate step?

Noise. With modern dSLRs, you can shoot at higher ISOs and get much
cleaner images than you ever could with film. Even some of today's
lower-cost dSLRs are producing images at ISO 1600 that are extremely
noise-free and very usable. If you shoot available light, digital makes
your life much, much easier.

Time. Digital takes less time - period. No developing, no scanning, no
nothing. You can take a picture one minute, and be sending it to a
client on a CD the next. Additionally, having an LCD to review your
shots means you can confirm you have the shot you want and avoid
retakes.

Cost. If you shoot LOTS of film, and I mean LOTS (think sports
photographers) there is a major cost savings to be had in terms of film
and developing - especially if you shoot expensive slide films.

Now, for some photographers these issues don't matter. And it isn't
like film produces crappy output. But the truth is that digital has
solved problems for many photographers. Whether you share their
problems is another matter entirely.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

Phil Stripling wrote:

"Martin Francis" writes:

So, all of you who haven't " gone digital"- what would it take?

My question is, What problem would it solve?

I've been shooting film for decades, and there are some problems with film,
but for the most part, digital doesn't solve them.

It does solve other problems. With the advent of the Web, it's cheaper to
use my Nikon CoolPix 950 or 990 or whichever, I forget, to take a snapshot
and just post it than it is to take a slide, have it developed, have it
scanned, then post it. Uh, it's quicker, too. But if it's not going on the
Web, that's not a problem, hence digital is not a solution.

So let me toss it back to you: What problem would going digital solve for
you?

You know what . . . that is the best question I have read so far on this
issue.

When I think of all factors that might affect my work, the only thing I could
think of would be that it would replace handing Polaroids to the client or art
director. I would still use Polaroids to test lighting, since I think they are
a better match to indicate possible final printed items, but I think some
clients might be happier with an almost live preview of the shoot. Of course,
I could just do like one professional I know, and use a live video feed of the
shoot going to a screen for the client to view.

Now that I think of this more, why would I use direct digital gear . . .
unless a client demanded it. As long as I stay print and publication oriented,
and film is still easily available, then film suits my needs.

Good question . . .

Thanks for making me think more logically about this.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

Brian C. Baird writes:

Color. Digital produces more accurate color and allows more control
over the final output than a chemical process.

I shoot slides.


Scanning/Workflow. Scanning takes time, as does reducing the more
noticeable dust and lint that adheres to the negative/positive
transparency. Most people use Photoshop for adjusting their film
images, why bother with a lossy intermediate step?

I don't scan my slides unless I find some I want on the Web. That's a minor
part of all the frames I expose.


Noise. With modern dSLRs, you can shoot at higher ISOs and get much
cleaner images than you ever could with film. Even some of today's
lower-cost dSLRs are producing images at ISO 1600 that are extremely
noise-free and very usable. If you shoot available light, digital makes
your life much, much easier.

I see that sharpening digital images produces prints that definitely appear
sharper to me. Unfortunately, I don't generally print my slides. I
generally shoot Velvia, although for night shots. I'll switch to a 200 or
400 ISO slide film. Noise, I'm happy to say, is not a problem with
Velvia. And the available light in the French West Indies is quite nice.
Quite nice. And also at Burning Man.


Time. Digital takes less time - period. No developing, no scanning, no
nothing. You can take a picture one minute, and be sending it to a
client on a CD the next. Additionally, having an LCD to review your
shots means you can confirm you have the shot you want and avoid
retakes.

Well, I think that's somewhat misleading. I used to walk my undeveloped
slides over to the local guy, and I'd have them back in a couple of
hours. Ready to sort and index. I don't send my images to clients, I don't
have to clean them up or sharpen them or futz with them in any way, then
write them to a CD. They're in slide holders in my file cabinet, ready for
viewing. I don't develop them myself, so it's basically travel time --
while they're being developed, I'm doing something else. And, of course,
I'm not futzing with the files on my computer, either.

Thanks to digital, my developer went out of business, so now I have to
drive to the next town, drop them off, and pick them up the next day. But
all this is a happenstance of where I live. I still bet I spend less time
in what I'll call post production than you do. But again, that's a
happenstance of what I use my images for. I'm quite confident that lots of
digital users spend less time over all on digital than they did or would
have on film.


Cost. If you shoot LOTS of film, and I mean LOTS (think sports
photographers) there is a major cost savings to be had in terms of film
and developing - especially if you shoot expensive slide films.

I think it's cheaper to shoot digital even if you don't shoot lots of
film. Of course, I never print my images, so that's one savings I have.


Now, for some photographers these issues don't matter. And it isn't
like film produces crappy output. But the truth is that digital has
solved problems for many photographers. Whether you share their
problems is another matter entirely.

I think those issues pretty much don't matter for me. Which is, as I said,
why digital doesn't solve any problems for me. I'm sure the original poster
can compare and contrast your problems and mine and have a nice summary of
some of the issues. If your points speak to him, he should consider using a
digital camera.
--
Philip Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
Legal Assistance on the Web | spam and read later. email to philip@
http://www.PhilipStripling.com/ | my domain is read daily.

Gordon Moat writes:

Resolution is the issue most point towards, since it is the most quantifiable
comparison. With the Fuji S3, Leica Digital R Module, Kodak DCS 14n, and full
frame Canon, the resolution is there. I might actually buy one of these used in
a few years, when the cost is too low to ignore. Most of these will do
publication size single page, with possible two page spread capability.

Um, lots and *lots* of publications all the way up to National
Geographic are *already* publishing pages shot with cameras with less
resolution than most of the ones you list. Apparently they *already*
have the ability to do a "publication size single page".

All my gear needs to make me money. My film expenses are billed out,
so there is no direct savings from that. Since there would need to
be more time in post processing with direct digital (I have used
enough to see this reality), it remains a choice only driven by some
clients, and then largely rented gear. If my time after doing the
images is longer, then I basically loose money with digital. I need
to emphasize that my needs and working methods do not match many on
this group, so I am sure my reasoning will confuse some people.

If you're happy giving the money to the lab instead of keeping it
yourself, that's cool. But the clients don't mostly look at *just*
your service fee; they look at the total bill, including the expenses
you charge back. Then they add in the cost of scanning if you don't
provide files, since all of them use scanned images in their prepress
process.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

Brian C. Baird writes:

Cost. If you shoot LOTS of film, and I mean LOTS (think sports
photographers) there is a major cost savings to be had in terms of
film and developing - especially if you shoot expensive slide films.

Slide film: E100 @ $5.99 (B&H), processing locally at a pro lab about
$8.

So, let's see. A $2000 body equals 143 rolls of film -- or in other
words, even for an active amateur the *whole thing* pays for itself
very quickly indeed. An active professional in the right field can
shoot that much in a *week* sometimes.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

"Martin Francis" wrote in message
...
It seems, as far as the masses are concerned, that 35mm film is history. I
never considered myself one of the masses anyway, but as one who sells
cameras all day the questions arise- if peer pressure won't do it, and if
the desire to possess technology won't do it, what will it take for me to
"go digital"?

I keep working my way around the current models, thinking "hey, high
resolution would do it" or "maybe using manual lenses and slowing the
whole
process down would do it". But I think i've compiled my list- a small,
metal, traditional SLR or RF design, manual focus lenses, moderately high
resolution, a big sensor and a really big, bright viewfinder; all that in
a
reasonably priced package might just about do it. The total disappearance
of
my favourite films would almost certainly do it. Whether i'm waiting for a
Digital M7 or FM3D or what, I don't know- but I know I can't buy it yet.

So, all of you who haven't " gone digital"- what would it take?

A body like my F5, with all the bells & whistles of my F5, that has the
resolution near or close to my F5. that is to say, around 12 Megapixels, or
better. It would have to cost about the same. (Under $2000 for the body) and
hold enough storage to take 35 pictures at full resolution. It would also
have to mount my complete Nikkor lens set, and the lenses should have the
same effective focal lengths that they have now. IOW, the sensing plane
should be approximately 24 x 36 mm. I would still use my F5 for slides, mind
you, but I think I would be persuaded to, "go digital" for a body like the
above.

Gordon Moat writes:

You know what . . . that is the best question I have read so far on this
issue.

Thanks.


When I think of all factors that might affect my work, the only thing I could
SNIP

One of the common problems we all face is that I, for example, think
everybody is just like me and works just like me. So if I find film better
for me, I presume it's better for you and everyone else. I think we all
think that.

I discovered this when I was first doing Web pages for myself on my 11-inch
monitor. All my pages looked great to me. And then I'd run across some
knucklehead who'd made _his_ page to look great on his gigantic 15-inch
monitor, and I was scrolling to the right to read all the text, and he was
playing music on his page that I hated, and had huge graphics so the whole
thing took hours to download on my telephone modem at 9600 baud. (Well,
this was back in nineteen ought ninety-five or so, and that's how fast my
modem was.)

I learn a lot from people who disagree with and tell me not only that I'm
wrong, but why. Sometimes I learn I should change, and sometimes I learn
that I'm doing what works for me. :-
--
Philip Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
Legal Assistance on the Web | spam and read later. email to philip@
http://www.PhilipStripling.com/ | my domain is read daily.

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

Gordon Moat writes:

Resolution is the issue most point towards, since it is the most quantifiable
comparison. With the Fuji S3, Leica Digital R Module, Kodak DCS 14n, and full
frame Canon, the resolution is there. I might actually buy one of these used in
a few years, when the cost is too low to ignore. Most of these will do
publication size single page, with possible two page spread capability.

Um, lots and *lots* of publications all the way up to National
Geographic are *already* publishing pages shot with cameras with less
resolution than most of the ones you list. Apparently they *already*
have the ability to do a "publication size single page".

Sure, and pinhole images, Holga images, Polaroids, and lots of other things also get
printed on a regular basis. My requirements come from high quality publication
printing, without interpolated resolution. The current publishing standard is 300
ppi at the final print dimensions. Take the largest file size possible, and divide
by 300 to come up with the maximum print sizes. I realize others do larger prints
with less, but for my work I will not accept a lower standard.

If it is a compelling image, it will get used regardless of source. We have all seen
examples of that. Also, resolution is only one issue, and colour has always been
much more of an issue with my work. If it were only resolution, I might feel
differently . . . maybe.



All my gear needs to make me money. My film expenses are billed out,
so there is no direct savings from that. Since there would need to
be more time in post processing with direct digital (I have used
enough to see this reality), it remains a choice only driven by some
clients, and then largely rented gear. If my time after doing the
images is longer, then I basically loose money with digital. I need
to emphasize that my needs and working methods do not match many on
this group, so I am sure my reasoning will confuse some people.

If you're happy giving the money to the lab instead of keeping it
yourself, that's cool. But the clients don't mostly look at *just*
your service fee; they look at the total bill, including the expenses
you charge back. Then they add in the cost of scanning if you don't
provide files, since all of them use scanned images in their prepress
process.

I do full service, meaning they get a CD-R with CMYK press ready images. I am a
printing and colour specialist, and I do quite a bit of design work as well. It has
only been the last few years that my photography work has surpassed my design work,
but I continue to do just print design for some clients.

Your implied lab economy indicates you would charge less for direct digital. If you
are happy with that, then you have found a working model that serves your
professional imaging clients well. The reality is that digital takes more computer
time, with very few exceptions (digital backs that provide CMYK files often need
little to no adjustments for printing), and I would rather have the lab do that
extra time than me. My clients have never had a problem with my fees, nor the
expenses . . . probably because they have been very happy with the final results. In
order for me to do more direct digital work, I would raise my prices.

Until the colour issues are fixed, or a move away from the Bayer pattern happens, I
am sticking with film. The one job that supplied me with a Kodak DCS mostly needed
newsprint quality images, and the few rentals I have done were for clients who
specifically wanted direct digital. All those rental digital shoots included film
images, and I gave those clients a choice of which images, without telling them
which originated on film. Almost all the images selected for publication and
printing were from scanned film. This is my reality, and it indicates to me that I
should stick with film for now. That might change in the future.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

"Martin Francis" wrote in message
...

So, all of you who haven't " gone digital"- what would it take?
I've gone partially digital - I have a P&S digital that I _occasionally_
use.
For me to go mostly digital, it would require a few things:
1. my film SLR would have to break down so my Minister for War and Finance
would be likely to approve funding for a new camera (Considering I not long
got one, this won't happen for a while).
2. There would have to be availability of an SLR that would take most of my
Pentax lenses (yes I know such a beast exists, in the *istD and *istDS), or
alternatively another system that would allow me to get equivalent lenses to
cover my needs, but without costing significantly more (50mm F1.4 lenses
aren't cheap to replace).
3. Such a camera would have to be available for similar price or only a
fraction more than a film SLR - at the moment in Aus a good film SLR can be
had for under $500 whereas the EOS300D is the first DSLR, at $1000 more.

To go totally digital however would require a few other requirements:
1. The camera would have to be capable of extremely low grain, high
sharpness B&W's.
2. The camera would have to be capable of producing GRAIN at ISO 3200, not
random noise.
3. A projector would have to be available that would project images at
similar resolution and clarity to a slide (none of this 800x600 crap), and
would have to have a similar cost to a slide projector (and i'd have to be
able to justify the purchase of a projector)

Until I can meet these requirements I'll still continue to use a partial
film/digital system - I take photos on film, get the negatives/slides
scanned in good quality through a fuji frontier (3300x2200 resolution). I
then have a digital image that is as good as any current model prosumer
digital camera, that I can do any manipulation on just as I would with a
digital image. Sure it costs a little more per photo than a pure digital
system would, but I figure with this system I have the best of both worlds.

--
Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk
"Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and
no, and yes...."