Sad news for film-based photography

Be careful what you wish for the transition could be painful.


In article ,
(Ted Azito) wrote:

As long as the market is there and is demanding the quality product,
someone will make said product. Personally I hope Kodak dies. Its
complete death will be a big boost for small specialist firms, and
they may acquire its technical assets at reasonable prices. It's
obvious that it has been suffering from corporate Alzheimer's for a
decade at least.

Meanwhile on the digital front, digital cameras will become
commoditized like PCs, there will be no margin, and it will settle
down to one or two big players and some niche companies.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

Be careful what you wish for the transition could be painful.


In article ,
(Ted Azito) wrote:

As long as the market is there and is demanding the quality product,
someone will make said product. Personally I hope Kodak dies. Its
complete death will be a big boost for small specialist firms, and
they may acquire its technical assets at reasonable prices. It's
obvious that it has been suffering from corporate Alzheimer's for a
decade at least.

Meanwhile on the digital front, digital cameras will become
commoditized like PCs, there will be no margin, and it will settle
down to one or two big players and some niche companies.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

"jjs" wrote in message ...
"Böwzér" wrote in message
...
This is total BS...

The best archival storage does not have the liability of requiring
electricity to keep it alive and lasts a couple hundred years. Figure it
out. I'll count to three. One....Two... (GET IT YET?)

To quote a wise man (with slight rephrasing)

"Real men don't take backups, they just upload them to a ftp server
and let the world mirror it" ;-)

"jjs" wrote in message ...
"Böwzér" wrote in message
...
This is total BS...

The best archival storage does not have the liability of requiring
electricity to keep it alive and lasts a couple hundred years. Figure it
out. I'll count to three. One....Two... (GET IT YET?)

To quote a wise man (with slight rephrasing)

"Real men don't take backups, they just upload them to a ftp server
and let the world mirror it" ;-)

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
k.net...

A Zeiss Ikonophone? ;-)

Prophetic. I love the name. Postage-stamp sized pictures, i(c)on. Perfect.

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
k.net...

A Zeiss Ikonophone? ;-)

Prophetic. I love the name. Postage-stamp sized pictures, i(c)on. Perfect.

Ted Azito wrote:

As long as the market is there and is demanding the quality product,
someone will make said product. Personally I hope Kodak dies. Its
complete death will be a big boost for small specialist firms, and
they may acquire its technical assets at reasonable prices. It's
obvious that it has been suffering from corporate Alzheimer's for a
decade at least.

Stupidist post I've read in weeks. Maybe we need an award.


--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Ted Azito wrote:

As long as the market is there and is demanding the quality product,
someone will make said product. Personally I hope Kodak dies. Its
complete death will be a big boost for small specialist firms, and
they may acquire its technical assets at reasonable prices. It's
obvious that it has been suffering from corporate Alzheimer's for a
decade at least.

Stupidist post I've read in weeks. Maybe we need an award.


--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Alan Browne wrote:

Gordon Moat wrote:



I think most of the medium format backs are not purchased, but on lease plans. These
lease plans allow future updates, and conversion of the lease, to any newer technology
releases. Medium format backs also have much better chip cooling, which means even less
noise. There are still advantages to using medium format digital backs, over 35 mm
sized digital SLRs.

Excellent points which I conveniently left out (as I didn't consider them! ;-) )

However, the above use goes beyond what I was describing (eg: the land in
between MF and 35mm that these new sensors will cover quite well).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I would put medium format shots on Fuji Astia 100F up against direct digital images.
Clean images is also a strange preference, and strange usage of words by some
individuals in comparisons. I was taking scanned film images and converting them into
areas of smooth colour in 1996, so the look is something I am very familiar with,
though I would rarely claim that I liked it better for all subjects. Here we have a
choice that comes down to aesthetics and taste, rather than technology.

My main gripe with direct digital has always been with the colour range potential. Film
can indeed capture colours outside the range of direct digital. While it is tough to
impossible to see many of those colour ranges on any computer monitor, it is easy
enough to measure them. Also, it is possible to compare a transparency to a final print
to very closely match colours, something not possible with direct digital. If you only
go by making the print look like the monitor, you will miss some colour ranges.

Certainly. I have no real idea how digital works out where color accuracy is
important in the final work. It isn't critical for all uses, but certainly some.


Direct digital is largely biased for nice skin tones, and it does an acceptable job
with those. Many professionals do not need to be so rigid with final printed colours,
so those ranges outside the realm of an imaging chip are just not an issue for some.

We could easily get into another colour discussion, like we had many times in the past
on the medium format news group, though I think you will find that very few of us on
these news groups really need to worry about colours (I am one of the few). I think you
will find more people comparing lp/mm, which makes MTF an entirely valid comparison. If
you want to switch the subject to colour, then do so, otherwise address the "MTF"
comparison as I put it.

The MTF // lp/mm arguments miss out on a crucial point ... or rather it is
glossed over a lot. The noise in film is different than the noise in digital.

Okay, good thing to bring that up. Noise in film, or film scans, is uniform in hue. Noise in
direct digital is often caused by Bayer Pattern algorithm problems, sometimes due to cooling
issues, or current levels. The actual measurable noise in direct digital often involves
other hues with a large area of mostly one hue. Fill Factory is one of the few companies to
actually publish information about these issues. If you look enough, you might also find
some information about various algorithms that have been used with direct digital imaging.
All algorithms interpret colours, which can lead to errors in some situations.

An example is to imagine an image with lots of blue sky. The blue sky varies slightly from
horizon to highest altitude, though is a subtle variation of hue. On film, the noise would
be grain clusters, which are somewhat irregular (depending upon the film), though not a
shift in hue. With direct digital, the noise in the sky area can be composed of red and
green hues. We have all seen examples of this. Removing this effect from scanned film, or
from direct digital, can be done in post processing, though the methods are slightly
different for each.


Digital noise is in dynamic only (z) where in film it is also in the lateral.
This is the 'clean' look of digital that is very appealing (notwithstanding your
earlier aesthetics statement which is of course valid). But 'borrowing' an
analogy it is easy to make a clean image look more classic/grainy/contasty than
it is to un-grain a grainy image....

I have some fairly large images from using Fuji Astia 100F that were chemically printed, and
there simply is no grain, or noise. Obviously, that is a very extra fine grain film, and not
something everyone uses. If I were to scan and post process those images, I might find
irregular areas in a large hue area that appeared as noise, or grain. Editing those out
would be a very simple matter. Recall that what is often visible on a low resolution
computer monitor rarely appears in a print, either chemical, or offset press.

I think too many people judge what they see on a monitor. If the goal was only broadcast or
internet usage, then direct digital beats film in all comparisons. When the goal is
printing, then the comparisons change. I rarely do chemical prints, except when exhibiting
my fine art photography, so almost everything that is work based gets scanned.

I can easily post process any film image to give that ultra "clean" look of digital, and do
so very quickly. I never particularly liked that look eight year ago, and I am still not
fond of it now. The real world has textures on large areas of colour, or subtle variations
with large areas of one hue. These subtleties are what draw many of use to use medium
format, and probably more so than just basing that choice on resolution.




There will remain, of course, those who need 6x6 cm reversal drum scanned for
ultimate detail ... but I would hazard the guess that this Canon can do most
commercial photography w/o a hitch ... including large format magazines.


Sure, we will be seeing more of this direct digital all the time. Also, I have been
hearing about more of the issues of advertising photographers with direct digital, and
many of the problems inherent in working that way. In several ways, it requires a
different approach, and can bring up some problems not previously encountered with
film. Those on these groups who are only photography enthusiasts probably will not come
up against these issues, or not consider them important enough to negate the advantages
of direct digital.

Yep. I met a pj a year or so ago who had switched entirely to Nikon digital
camera bodies. While a pj who did mainly sports and entertainment (and he gave
us one hell of a show), since he switched to digital, he suddenly got a lot of
bookings for commercial catalog work (fashion mainly).

1) He could shoot by lunchtime what previously took a day. Huge impact on the
studio arrangements from models, art directors, makeup, wardrobe and others.

2) At the end of the session, he burns the CD's on the spot and hands them over.
Done. Please pay promptly.

As long as there are no complaints, then whatever works. Many of us have heard successful
stories, and problems. It really is down to individual needs to meet an end result. My
personal feeling is that I would never want that fast a turnaround, even with direct digital
(might be different if I did product photography). I feel it is important to review the
images, thus giving each client the best choices to meet their needs. Some photographers
might feel that a better work flow is just to hand lots of images to a client, and let them
hopefully pick something that works. Clients should come to photographers and imaging
professionals because they have a particular vision to best interpret a design brief, though
some clients still do choose to use some individuals because they have certain gear, or
ultra fast turnaround, or very low prices.



So for him, it opened a whole additional market. Which is good (as it fills in
idle time) and bad (he is overbooked and has to farm out to competitors).

Overbooked is easy to solve, just charge more. Why give someone else the work? Anyway, I am
certain each of us could come up with several examples, and both of us have likely read many
working profiles.

One advantage of my workflow is that I can show the printer the transparencies, or send them
an E-Dupe, and they can see what the final printed colour should output. I recently did a
music CD package that I photographed, designed, and did the pre-press preparation on. The
interior of the booklet included a green hue not visible on a computer monitor. I knew the
colour from a transparency, and I have a PostScript RIP proofing printer, so I had a close
print match to what I was trying to get in the final product. Reviews of the design were
done with PDF files, with the warning that the colour they saw on the screen was different
than the final intended printed colour. To help the printing place, I specified a Pantone
match, though the final job was done in CMYK. This is not an isolated example for what I do.
People sometimes hire me because I am a colour specialist.




I now have a large print on exhibit in a gallery from that camera. Anyway, if you
meant that the new Canon digital beats an old folder medium format camera, then I
would probably tend to agree. ;-)

That is not precisely what I meant. I meant, quite simply, that this camera is
_encroaching_ on MF (all MF).


The reality of today is that anything used for imaging can allow one to express a
creative vision. I think you missed that point, and my smiley. There is no good reason
why one capture medium "must" be better than another. It is also interesting that
direct digital tries to look like film imagery . . . if film was really so inferior,
then why bother trying to look like that, or even make comparisons.

Creative! Hell, throw that film camera on the granite floor and catch the
decisive moment with your new digi! That's creative! (Or the other way around
if you prefer...) ;-)

I didn't get get you point in that context.

The point was that the image is more important than the gear that created that image. No
image is validated, nor invalidated, because it was captured with specific gear (yes, even
Leica, Zeiss, and Hasselblad). Since these are equipment groups, I would expect lots of
protest about that statement.

I don't think many working pros are
going to use 'antique' or otherwise unusual cameras for a lot of their
commercial work.

You would be very surprised. There are some lenses that allow a different look, and those
might only work with specific gear. While these may be more fashion, lifestyle, or editorial
in usage, or even advertising, there are several working pros that use some unusual gear.

They will, in the main, be reasonably up to date with cameras
that have the required capabilities for their work. There are some exceptions,
I'm sure.

Most of the advertising professional photographers I know, or have read about, have more
money in lighting and support gear (like computers), than they do in cameras. Some only use
a very small assortment of cameras, and few lenses, since that is what they are comfortable
using.

Some view cameras are pretty damned old and still in portrait use.
For 'artistic' work, if you can produce art with a Holga, then so be it... your
'folder' is high tech in comparison... again, rearing its head: you can take
precision down, but you can't take coarseness up.

Ideas drive creativity in images, not technology. If someone can create compelling images
with a Holga, and another individual makes boring snapshots with $10000 of equipment, then
which choice was best?



Trying to look like film is a good goal. The earlier digital cameras sometimes
had an odd look. The 'digital' look (which varies from sensor to sensor) is
rarely lauded. Recently reading a summary (Fuji S3 I believe) they actually
have film emulation modes (look like a portrait film, look like saturated slide
film, look like... etc.).

Cheers,
Alan

PS: I took ...nature out of the x-post as that was getting really OT.

That's okay, I did not actually notice that, since I don't participate on that group.

Okay, last technology item. The imaging chips currently have more of an infrared bias, with
few getting near ultraviolet. Many are now with the range of human vision, except near
infrared. The problem we have with this technology now is that the Bayer Pattern constricts
the colour range. There is also an IR filter to constrict the upper wavelengths, though no
UV filter is needed. Further restriction can be caused by the colour space assigned within
the cameras. The RAW spaces allow a larger colour space, with the potential for further
conversion. One problem with a large colour space is that there are bigger gaps between
values, which can sometimes give a stepped (or banding) output on a final print. There are
some ways to get around that, including only editing in 16 bit mode in PhotoShop (or similar
software).

I should mention that I largely work in ProPhotoRGB space, which is one of the largest
colour spaces. I am aware of the stepping and gaps issues, though I have several years using
this software, and I have no printed output problems from using this large a colour space.
If you want more technical information on this, start he

http://www.naturephotographers.net/articles1203/mh1203-1.html Nice non technical overview.

http://www.brucelindbloom.com/index.html?WorkingSpaceInfo.html Graphs of colour spaces
compared, much more technical in nature, though really good information.

Anyway, you chose colour, though I think a comparison of resolution would have made a much
simpler discussion. ;-)

Ciao!

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

Alan Browne wrote:

Gordon Moat wrote:



I think most of the medium format backs are not purchased, but on lease plans. These
lease plans allow future updates, and conversion of the lease, to any newer technology
releases. Medium format backs also have much better chip cooling, which means even less
noise. There are still advantages to using medium format digital backs, over 35 mm
sized digital SLRs.

Excellent points which I conveniently left out (as I didn't consider them! ;-) )

However, the above use goes beyond what I was describing (eg: the land in
between MF and 35mm that these new sensors will cover quite well).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I would put medium format shots on Fuji Astia 100F up against direct digital images.
Clean images is also a strange preference, and strange usage of words by some
individuals in comparisons. I was taking scanned film images and converting them into
areas of smooth colour in 1996, so the look is something I am very familiar with,
though I would rarely claim that I liked it better for all subjects. Here we have a
choice that comes down to aesthetics and taste, rather than technology.

My main gripe with direct digital has always been with the colour range potential. Film
can indeed capture colours outside the range of direct digital. While it is tough to
impossible to see many of those colour ranges on any computer monitor, it is easy
enough to measure them. Also, it is possible to compare a transparency to a final print
to very closely match colours, something not possible with direct digital. If you only
go by making the print look like the monitor, you will miss some colour ranges.

Certainly. I have no real idea how digital works out where color accuracy is
important in the final work. It isn't critical for all uses, but certainly some.


Direct digital is largely biased for nice skin tones, and it does an acceptable job
with those. Many professionals do not need to be so rigid with final printed colours,
so those ranges outside the realm of an imaging chip are just not an issue for some.

We could easily get into another colour discussion, like we had many times in the past
on the medium format news group, though I think you will find that very few of us on
these news groups really need to worry about colours (I am one of the few). I think you
will find more people comparing lp/mm, which makes MTF an entirely valid comparison. If
you want to switch the subject to colour, then do so, otherwise address the "MTF"
comparison as I put it.

The MTF // lp/mm arguments miss out on a crucial point ... or rather it is
glossed over a lot. The noise in film is different than the noise in digital.

Okay, good thing to bring that up. Noise in film, or film scans, is uniform in hue. Noise in
direct digital is often caused by Bayer Pattern algorithm problems, sometimes due to cooling
issues, or current levels. The actual measurable noise in direct digital often involves
other hues with a large area of mostly one hue. Fill Factory is one of the few companies to
actually publish information about these issues. If you look enough, you might also find
some information about various algorithms that have been used with direct digital imaging.
All algorithms interpret colours, which can lead to errors in some situations.

An example is to imagine an image with lots of blue sky. The blue sky varies slightly from
horizon to highest altitude, though is a subtle variation of hue. On film, the noise would
be grain clusters, which are somewhat irregular (depending upon the film), though not a
shift in hue. With direct digital, the noise in the sky area can be composed of red and
green hues. We have all seen examples of this. Removing this effect from scanned film, or
from direct digital, can be done in post processing, though the methods are slightly
different for each.


Digital noise is in dynamic only (z) where in film it is also in the lateral.
This is the 'clean' look of digital that is very appealing (notwithstanding your
earlier aesthetics statement which is of course valid). But 'borrowing' an
analogy it is easy to make a clean image look more classic/grainy/contasty than
it is to un-grain a grainy image....

I have some fairly large images from using Fuji Astia 100F that were chemically printed, and
there simply is no grain, or noise. Obviously, that is a very extra fine grain film, and not
something everyone uses. If I were to scan and post process those images, I might find
irregular areas in a large hue area that appeared as noise, or grain. Editing those out
would be a very simple matter. Recall that what is often visible on a low resolution
computer monitor rarely appears in a print, either chemical, or offset press.

I think too many people judge what they see on a monitor. If the goal was only broadcast or
internet usage, then direct digital beats film in all comparisons. When the goal is
printing, then the comparisons change. I rarely do chemical prints, except when exhibiting
my fine art photography, so almost everything that is work based gets scanned.

I can easily post process any film image to give that ultra "clean" look of digital, and do
so very quickly. I never particularly liked that look eight year ago, and I am still not
fond of it now. The real world has textures on large areas of colour, or subtle variations
with large areas of one hue. These subtleties are what draw many of use to use medium
format, and probably more so than just basing that choice on resolution.




There will remain, of course, those who need 6x6 cm reversal drum scanned for
ultimate detail ... but I would hazard the guess that this Canon can do most
commercial photography w/o a hitch ... including large format magazines.


Sure, we will be seeing more of this direct digital all the time. Also, I have been
hearing about more of the issues of advertising photographers with direct digital, and
many of the problems inherent in working that way. In several ways, it requires a
different approach, and can bring up some problems not previously encountered with
film. Those on these groups who are only photography enthusiasts probably will not come
up against these issues, or not consider them important enough to negate the advantages
of direct digital.

Yep. I met a pj a year or so ago who had switched entirely to Nikon digital
camera bodies. While a pj who did mainly sports and entertainment (and he gave
us one hell of a show), since he switched to digital, he suddenly got a lot of
bookings for commercial catalog work (fashion mainly).

1) He could shoot by lunchtime what previously took a day. Huge impact on the
studio arrangements from models, art directors, makeup, wardrobe and others.

2) At the end of the session, he burns the CD's on the spot and hands them over.
Done. Please pay promptly.

As long as there are no complaints, then whatever works. Many of us have heard successful
stories, and problems. It really is down to individual needs to meet an end result. My
personal feeling is that I would never want that fast a turnaround, even with direct digital
(might be different if I did product photography). I feel it is important to review the
images, thus giving each client the best choices to meet their needs. Some photographers
might feel that a better work flow is just to hand lots of images to a client, and let them
hopefully pick something that works. Clients should come to photographers and imaging
professionals because they have a particular vision to best interpret a design brief, though
some clients still do choose to use some individuals because they have certain gear, or
ultra fast turnaround, or very low prices.



So for him, it opened a whole additional market. Which is good (as it fills in
idle time) and bad (he is overbooked and has to farm out to competitors).

Overbooked is easy to solve, just charge more. Why give someone else the work? Anyway, I am
certain each of us could come up with several examples, and both of us have likely read many
working profiles.

One advantage of my workflow is that I can show the printer the transparencies, or send them
an E-Dupe, and they can see what the final printed colour should output. I recently did a
music CD package that I photographed, designed, and did the pre-press preparation on. The
interior of the booklet included a green hue not visible on a computer monitor. I knew the
colour from a transparency, and I have a PostScript RIP proofing printer, so I had a close
print match to what I was trying to get in the final product. Reviews of the design were
done with PDF files, with the warning that the colour they saw on the screen was different
than the final intended printed colour. To help the printing place, I specified a Pantone
match, though the final job was done in CMYK. This is not an isolated example for what I do.
People sometimes hire me because I am a colour specialist.




I now have a large print on exhibit in a gallery from that camera. Anyway, if you
meant that the new Canon digital beats an old folder medium format camera, then I
would probably tend to agree. ;-)

That is not precisely what I meant. I meant, quite simply, that this camera is
_encroaching_ on MF (all MF).


The reality of today is that anything used for imaging can allow one to express a
creative vision. I think you missed that point, and my smiley. There is no good reason
why one capture medium "must" be better than another. It is also interesting that
direct digital tries to look like film imagery . . . if film was really so inferior,
then why bother trying to look like that, or even make comparisons.

Creative! Hell, throw that film camera on the granite floor and catch the
decisive moment with your new digi! That's creative! (Or the other way around
if you prefer...) ;-)

I didn't get get you point in that context.

The point was that the image is more important than the gear that created that image. No
image is validated, nor invalidated, because it was captured with specific gear (yes, even
Leica, Zeiss, and Hasselblad). Since these are equipment groups, I would expect lots of
protest about that statement.

I don't think many working pros are
going to use 'antique' or otherwise unusual cameras for a lot of their
commercial work.

You would be very surprised. There are some lenses that allow a different look, and those
might only work with specific gear. While these may be more fashion, lifestyle, or editorial
in usage, or even advertising, there are several working pros that use some unusual gear.

They will, in the main, be reasonably up to date with cameras
that have the required capabilities for their work. There are some exceptions,
I'm sure.

Most of the advertising professional photographers I know, or have read about, have more
money in lighting and support gear (like computers), than they do in cameras. Some only use
a very small assortment of cameras, and few lenses, since that is what they are comfortable
using.

Some view cameras are pretty damned old and still in portrait use.
For 'artistic' work, if you can produce art with a Holga, then so be it... your
'folder' is high tech in comparison... again, rearing its head: you can take
precision down, but you can't take coarseness up.

Ideas drive creativity in images, not technology. If someone can create compelling images
with a Holga, and another individual makes boring snapshots with $10000 of equipment, then
which choice was best?



Trying to look like film is a good goal. The earlier digital cameras sometimes
had an odd look. The 'digital' look (which varies from sensor to sensor) is
rarely lauded. Recently reading a summary (Fuji S3 I believe) they actually
have film emulation modes (look like a portrait film, look like saturated slide
film, look like... etc.).

Cheers,
Alan

PS: I took ...nature out of the x-post as that was getting really OT.

That's okay, I did not actually notice that, since I don't participate on that group.

Okay, last technology item. The imaging chips currently have more of an infrared bias, with
few getting near ultraviolet. Many are now with the range of human vision, except near
infrared. The problem we have with this technology now is that the Bayer Pattern constricts
the colour range. There is also an IR filter to constrict the upper wavelengths, though no
UV filter is needed. Further restriction can be caused by the colour space assigned within
the cameras. The RAW spaces allow a larger colour space, with the potential for further
conversion. One problem with a large colour space is that there are bigger gaps between
values, which can sometimes give a stepped (or banding) output on a final print. There are
some ways to get around that, including only editing in 16 bit mode in PhotoShop (or similar
software).

I should mention that I largely work in ProPhotoRGB space, which is one of the largest
colour spaces. I am aware of the stepping and gaps issues, though I have several years using
this software, and I have no printed output problems from using this large a colour space.
If you want more technical information on this, start he

http://www.naturephotographers.net/articles1203/mh1203-1.html Nice non technical overview.

http://www.brucelindbloom.com/index.html?WorkingSpaceInfo.html Graphs of colour spaces
compared, much more technical in nature, though really good information.

Anyway, you chose colour, though I think a comparison of resolution would have made a much
simpler discussion. ;-)

Ciao!

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