(OT) What would it take?

"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"?

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?
Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk

First: It would take a job that required it. Second: Said job would not
require me to actually look at the resulting pictures. If
digital was the only way to produce an image, I would never have developed
any interest in photography at all. There's a souless quality to the end
result, that does nothing for me. An inverse formula exists between quality
and quantity. The Gutenberg Bible is still a work of Art, while yesterdays
newspaper is beginning to yellow. Archival digital? Why would any one care.
Bob Hickey

I think a lot of people miss the point when they talk about
"resolution" BTW, THis is in repsponse to the thread, not any specific
person.. What matters is the size of the recording chip or sensor. In
most consumer types and even a lot of pro equipment the size of the
sensor is about that of a 110 film frame, or maybe a little larger.
How much resolution do (did) you have on a frame of 110 film? From
there, it's extrapolation and other fancy software work.

For the "Masses" however, this doesn't matter. As long as they can see
the image, get a resonable print, and have the immediate feedback
they're happy. They don't go out of thier way to make good photos,
they take snap shots. Then manipulate them in a graphics program and
save them on a disk. Isn't it fun to gather 'round the computer screen
for family viewing night???

I'm not saying digital doesn't have definate advantages but until
someone shows me a DSLR with a recording chip the size (at least) of a
35mm frame, REASONABLY priced, I'm not switching.

I don't think it will stop the digital encrochment but remember that
technology often obsoletes itself.. That is, how many of you have home
computers that are truely the fastest on the market today (even if you
bought them yesterday)?? When is the last time you saw an 8" floppy
disk, or used a 5 1/4" for that matter. I heard that a "new" dvd
system is on the way that will hold 100 times the amount the current
ones do.. Will those disks work in your current players?? I bet not..

My 3 cents.... 8) Jeff

"Graham Fountain" wrote in message ...
"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...."

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


prices of digital SLRs dropping to prices of film SLRs. A film SLR costs same
as a P&S 6.1mp digital.

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


prices of digital SLRs dropping to prices of film SLRs. A film SLR costs same
as a P&S 6.1mp digital.

Phil Stripling wrote:

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

Scanning slides.

Of course going digital raises other problems ... projecting images ... the
current projectors, as expensive as they are, do not do justice to photography.

Cheers,
Alan


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

Phil Stripling wrote:

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

Scanning slides.

Of course going digital raises other problems ... projecting images ... the
current projectors, as expensive as they are, do not do justice to photography.

Cheers,
Alan


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

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

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.

In an average *week* I believe it closer to 50 rolls... ;-)

An active amateur with film may shoot x rolls per week or year, but he husbands
his shots. The same amateur with a digital will shoot many more frames, and
edit them into the great bit bucket... and then say that the payback was faster
than it really was.

A pro is shooting to deliver a specific result and the choice of medium is as
much a business decision as an aesthetic decision. The sports shooter above is
a great example... digital provides the quality, the volume and the timliness
that businesses like Sports Illustrated require. (Look for an article psoted
last Feb about SI and the Super Bore and you'll see their trials, tribulations
and joys of digital).

In any case, project a digital image and then project a slide... no contest.

Cheers,
Alan

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

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

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.

In an average *week* I believe it closer to 50 rolls... ;-)

An active amateur with film may shoot x rolls per week or year, but he husbands
his shots. The same amateur with a digital will shoot many more frames, and
edit them into the great bit bucket... and then say that the payback was faster
than it really was.

A pro is shooting to deliver a specific result and the choice of medium is as
much a business decision as an aesthetic decision. The sports shooter above is
a great example... digital provides the quality, the volume and the timliness
that businesses like Sports Illustrated require. (Look for an article psoted
last Feb about SI and the Super Bore and you'll see their trials, tribulations
and joys of digital).

In any case, project a digital image and then project a slide... no contest.

Cheers,
Alan

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

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

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.

In an average *week* I believe it closer to 50 rolls... ;-)

An active amateur with film may shoot x rolls per week or year, but he husbands
his shots. The same amateur with a digital will shoot many more frames, and
edit them into the great bit bucket... and then say that the payback was faster
than it really was.

A pro is shooting to deliver a specific result and the choice of medium is as
much a business decision as an aesthetic decision. The sports shooter above is
a great example... digital provides the quality, the volume and the timliness
that businesses like Sports Illustrated require. (Look for an article psoted
last Feb about SI and the Super Bore and you'll see their trials, tribulations
and joys of digital).

In any case, project a digital image and then project a slide... no contest.

Cheers,
Alan

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

and read in 50 years directly from the original copy.

LOL, in 50 years CD-Rs and DVDs wont exist and you wont be able to read them.