Sad news for film-based photography

Gordon Moat wrote:


http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/04...eos1dsmkii.asp

it was just announced, so unlikely to be on the shelves yet, but surely in the
coming weeks you can place orders. 16.7 MP full frame.

for images taken by same... definitely encroaching on MF.
http://www.canon.co.jp/Imaging/eos1d..._sample-e.html



Alan, I am surprised you would make such a sweeping statement without seeing some
real samples. You have to know that company PR sample images are always chosen as
the best they can do, often with a limited range to play it safe. I would rather
see a colour test chart, or even a resolution chart, prior to making such an
assumption.

Hi Gordon,

Since even lower res DSLR cameras have definitely been 'encroaching' on MF for a
lot of work, and the quality of the presented images is hardly arguable, and
since the likely near term buyers of such cameras are mostly going to be revenue
making pros, I hardly think my statement is "sweeping". I'm also not alone in
the opinion.

Certainly the proof is in the eating of the pudding and working pros will show
what they can do once the camera is available. So I agree that anyone
interested in this camera should indeed "see more" before buying, and at these
value levels that is likely a given.

From what we have seen to date it is clear that the business decision to buy a
back for an MF v. purchassing this camera 'as is' and some decent lenses, will
tilt a goodly number of pros to looking at the 1Ds m.II. Not all, but a goodly
number. For the current price of a 22mpix MF back one can afford a couple of
these plus some high end primes.


The 4992 by 3328 pixels maximum image file size gives us an idea of the
resolution. With a 24 mm by 36 mm chip size, that gives us 69 1/3 lp/mm
resolution. If one took the offset printing standard of 300 ppi files, then the
4992 by 3328 file gives a 16 2/3" by 11 1/16" (42 cm by 28 cm) final printed
size, quite good enough for two page spreads. That is how some professionals will
judge this camera, though obviously one could get away with larger prints using
the higher dot gain of inkjet printers.

And that is the point, isn't it. And for larger productions, I believe that a
reasonable degree of interpolation will still result in images with enough
quality for many uses.


If we compare the lp/mm potential and frame size to medium format, then the
magnification, or final printed size, becomes more interesting. Just taking the
long edge of 36 mm, and horizontal resolution, compared to the 56 mm long edge of
a 645 frame, that 42 cm by 28 cm print from 645 film would only need the medium
format film to be about 44.57 lp/mm.

You've probably noticed, as have I, that pure MTF discussions are hard to defend
in the face of the clean digital images that are produced by many 35mm DSLR cameras.

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.

snipped good stuff

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).

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...croach&x=0&y=0
1 : to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of
another

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- 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:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/04...eos1dsmkii.asp

it was just announced, so unlikely to be on the shelves yet, but surely in the
coming weeks you can place orders. 16.7 MP full frame.

for images taken by same... definitely encroaching on MF.
http://www.canon.co.jp/Imaging/eos1d..._sample-e.html



Alan, I am surprised you would make such a sweeping statement without seeing some
real samples. You have to know that company PR sample images are always chosen as
the best they can do, often with a limited range to play it safe. I would rather
see a colour test chart, or even a resolution chart, prior to making such an
assumption.

Hi Gordon,

Since even lower res DSLR cameras have definitely been 'encroaching' on MF for a
lot of work, and the quality of the presented images is hardly arguable, and
since the likely near term buyers of such cameras are mostly going to be revenue
making pros, I hardly think my statement is "sweeping". I'm also not alone in
the opinion.

Certainly the proof is in the eating of the pudding and working pros will show
what they can do once the camera is available. So I agree that anyone
interested in this camera should indeed "see more" before buying, and at these
value levels that is likely a given.

That is a much more reasonable statement. Obviously, a wait and see approach will allow
for better consideration.



From what we have seen to date it is clear that the business decision to buy a
back for an MF v. purchassing this camera 'as is' and some decent lenses, will
tilt a goodly number of pros to looking at the 1Ds m.II. Not all, but a goodly
number. For the current price of a 22mpix MF back one can afford a couple of
these plus some high end primes.

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.




The 4992 by 3328 pixels maximum image file size gives us an idea of the
resolution. With a 24 mm by 36 mm chip size, that gives us 69 1/3 lp/mm
resolution. If one took the offset printing standard of 300 ppi files, then the
4992 by 3328 file gives a 16 2/3" by 11 1/16" (42 cm by 28 cm) final printed
size, quite good enough for two page spreads. That is how some professionals will
judge this camera, though obviously one could get away with larger prints using
the higher dot gain of inkjet printers.

And that is the point, isn't it. And for larger productions, I believe that a
reasonable degree of interpolation will still result in images with enough
quality for many uses.

When the first Kodak DCS 14 came out, the first thing I looked at was the file size.
Just going on a resolution basis, it was indeed good enough for quite a bit of
commercial work. Even larger, and lower price point, later gear is likely to improve
further on this.




If we compare the lp/mm potential and frame size to medium format, then the
magnification, or final printed size, becomes more interesting. Just taking the
long edge of 36 mm, and horizontal resolution, compared to the 56 mm long edge of
a 645 frame, that 42 cm by 28 cm print from 645 film would only need the medium
format film to be about 44.57 lp/mm.

You've probably noticed, as have I, that pure MTF discussions are hard to defend
in the face of the clean digital images that are produced by many 35mm DSLR cameras.

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.

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.



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.



snipped good stuff

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.

Ciao!

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

"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
...

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.

Ciao!

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

I've never understood that "supposed to look like" either. Oil paintings
look like oil, acrylic paintings look like like acrylic, B/W film doesn't
look like color and digital looks like digital. If they want it to look like
something else, then something else is the thing to use. I can see George
Hurrell screaming: "I need more MBs on the cheekbone", or Ansel Adams
complaining about all the whites sliding off the histogram. It used to be a
sure sign of having "made it" to have a look of your own. Gene Smiths were
all his; Kim Westons will never look like Bretts, will never look like
Edwards. I wonder if WeeGee ever lit that cigar? Probably better he didn't.
Did anyone else get the knack of developing LF in the trunk of a Chevy? Can
you do the Zone System with M Class bulbs? Boof..... maybe not. When
does PhotoShop 17 come out? Just in time.
Bob Hickey

"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
...

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.

Ciao!

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

I've never understood that "supposed to look like" either. Oil paintings
look like oil, acrylic paintings look like like acrylic, B/W film doesn't
look like color and digital looks like digital. If they want it to look like
something else, then something else is the thing to use. I can see George
Hurrell screaming: "I need more MBs on the cheekbone", or Ansel Adams
complaining about all the whites sliding off the histogram. It used to be a
sure sign of having "made it" to have a look of your own. Gene Smiths were
all his; Kim Westons will never look like Bretts, will never look like
Edwards. I wonder if WeeGee ever lit that cigar? Probably better he didn't.
Did anyone else get the knack of developing LF in the trunk of a Chevy? Can
you do the Zone System with M Class bulbs? Boof..... maybe not. When
does PhotoShop 17 come out? Just in time.
Bob Hickey

Hi Gordon,

Recently, Gordon Moat posted:
(many good points, largely snipped)

Neil Gould wrote:

I hear so many incongruous messages that it's hard to know where any
of these companies stand. The last I heard (a couple of months ago),
Apple wasn't even in the top 10 computer makers any more. I guess
they're still big enough to bleed for some time to come.

With Apple, it is not the volume, nor the ranking, nor even the
placement. The reality is that they are selling near a 24% to 28%
profit level, and sitting on some cash. They also hold many large
investments in other companies. The only computer maker with a
similar profit level is Sony. All other computer makers are under 20%
profit levels. The lesson here is that a company does not need to be
huge to have good profits, and it is more related to good management
and operating efficiency.

That's very true, and might work *for a while*. The reason is that Apple
has also undercut independent developers by bringing mainstream apps
in-house, and I suspect it has more than a little to do with their losing
market share. The major app developers are already jumping ship and
producing only for the Windows environment (cutting back on their *nix
products, too). A computer is a doorstop without software, and Apple is
unlikely to match the capabilities of the independent software companies
to present a line of competing products.

The smaller sensors are the bulk of the profits, and the target
market. They are now under great pressure from the camera makers,
with camera phones. I would imagine that within a year or two, we
should be seeing some more well known camera company (or lens
manufacturers) names on some camera phones.

A Zeiss Ikonophone? ;-)

A Leicaphone? 8-)

A 3 MP camera phone was
recently released in Japan. While none of us might like the compact
cameras, or P&S cameras, those are the highest volume products. The
greatest volume of those is also 3 MP to 4 MP range, since they are
also quite often the smallest digital cameras. Digital SLRs are
barely a blip in volume.

I think that 3-4 MP is the "sweet spot" for digital cameras, at least
today. It's more than most people need, and less expensive while offering
more features than many of the higher resolution cameras.

Kodak has done well with R&D, often putting years of effort into
products. They have been able to accomplish that by being somewhat
quiet about developments, even though they are required to disclose
their operations. The quiet part comes from the patent potentials,
and I hope they continue with longer term R&D.

Believe me, I have a lot of respect for Kodak. In this forum, we tend to
think only about the products that we use as photographers. However, their
R&D has produced major products in other areas, too. I agree with you that
their highest revenue comes from the mass market products, but that hasn't
stopped them from innovating and releasing some viable products such as
their Approval systems.

Regards,

Neil

Hi Gordon,

Recently, Gordon Moat posted:
(many good points, largely snipped)

Neil Gould wrote:

I hear so many incongruous messages that it's hard to know where any
of these companies stand. The last I heard (a couple of months ago),
Apple wasn't even in the top 10 computer makers any more. I guess
they're still big enough to bleed for some time to come.

With Apple, it is not the volume, nor the ranking, nor even the
placement. The reality is that they are selling near a 24% to 28%
profit level, and sitting on some cash. They also hold many large
investments in other companies. The only computer maker with a
similar profit level is Sony. All other computer makers are under 20%
profit levels. The lesson here is that a company does not need to be
huge to have good profits, and it is more related to good management
and operating efficiency.

That's very true, and might work *for a while*. The reason is that Apple
has also undercut independent developers by bringing mainstream apps
in-house, and I suspect it has more than a little to do with their losing
market share. The major app developers are already jumping ship and
producing only for the Windows environment (cutting back on their *nix
products, too). A computer is a doorstop without software, and Apple is
unlikely to match the capabilities of the independent software companies
to present a line of competing products.

The smaller sensors are the bulk of the profits, and the target
market. They are now under great pressure from the camera makers,
with camera phones. I would imagine that within a year or two, we
should be seeing some more well known camera company (or lens
manufacturers) names on some camera phones.

A Zeiss Ikonophone? ;-)

A Leicaphone? 8-)

A 3 MP camera phone was
recently released in Japan. While none of us might like the compact
cameras, or P&S cameras, those are the highest volume products. The
greatest volume of those is also 3 MP to 4 MP range, since they are
also quite often the smallest digital cameras. Digital SLRs are
barely a blip in volume.

I think that 3-4 MP is the "sweet spot" for digital cameras, at least
today. It's more than most people need, and less expensive while offering
more features than many of the higher resolution cameras.

Kodak has done well with R&D, often putting years of effort into
products. They have been able to accomplish that by being somewhat
quiet about developments, even though they are required to disclose
their operations. The quiet part comes from the patent potentials,
and I hope they continue with longer term R&D.

Believe me, I have a lot of respect for Kodak. In this forum, we tend to
think only about the products that we use as photographers. However, their
R&D has produced major products in other areas, too. I agree with you that
their highest revenue comes from the mass market products, but that hasn't
stopped them from innovating and releasing some viable products such as
their Approval systems.

Regards,

Neil

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).


And that is the point, isn't it. And for larger productions, I believe that a
reasonable degree of interpolation will still result in images with enough
quality for many uses.


When the first Kodak DCS 14 came out, the first thing I looked at was the file size.
Just going on a resolution basis, it was indeed good enough for quite a bit of
commercial work. Even larger, and lower price point, later gear is likely to improve
further on this.



If we compare the lp/mm potential and frame size to medium format, then the
magnification, or final printed size, becomes more interesting. Just taking the
long edge of 36 mm, and horizontal resolution, compared to the 56 mm long edge of
a 645 frame, that 42 cm by 28 cm print from 645 film would only need the medium
format film to be about 44.57 lp/mm.

You've probably noticed, as have I, that pure MTF discussions are hard to defend
in the face of the clean digital images that are produced by many 35mm DSLR cameras.


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.
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....


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.

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).


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

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.


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

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).


And that is the point, isn't it. And for larger productions, I believe that a
reasonable degree of interpolation will still result in images with enough
quality for many uses.


When the first Kodak DCS 14 came out, the first thing I looked at was the file size.
Just going on a resolution basis, it was indeed good enough for quite a bit of
commercial work. Even larger, and lower price point, later gear is likely to improve
further on this.



If we compare the lp/mm potential and frame size to medium format, then the
magnification, or final printed size, becomes more interesting. Just taking the
long edge of 36 mm, and horizontal resolution, compared to the 56 mm long edge of
a 645 frame, that 42 cm by 28 cm print from 645 film would only need the medium
format film to be about 44.57 lp/mm.

You've probably noticed, as have I, that pure MTF discussions are hard to defend
in the face of the clean digital images that are produced by many 35mm DSLR cameras.


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.
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....


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.

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).


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

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.


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

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.

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.