Sad news for film-based photography

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 12:21:45 -0400, Alan Browne wrote the following:
Stupidist [sic] post I've read in weeks. Maybe we need an award.
for his response to Ted Azito's:
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.

Well, I just don't see it:

As long as the market is there and is demanding a quality product,
someone will make said product.
Well, can't argue with that. No stupidity here.

Personally I hope Kodak dies.
De gustibus non est disputandum

Its complete death will be a big boost for small specialist firms,
Nope, looked closely, don't see a crumb of dumb

and they may acquire its technical assets at reasonable prices.
Not here, either

It's obvious that it has been suffering from corporate
Alzheimer's for a decade at least.
'Tis almost a tautology ...

So, if this was 'the stupidest thing in weeks' the most charitable conclusion
I can draw is that someone has been on a long ocean voyage and wants an award
for staying away from the 'net.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/

Alan Browne wrote:

Gordon Moat wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
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.

That's describing the qualities all right, but now we're drifting from the
origin of the topic ... eg: can this camera fill a lot of things done on MF
presently ... and the answer is most positively yes. All things? Of course not.

Part of what I'm getting at, and we see this from time to time, is that in a
side by side comparison of a film v. digital shot, the scanned film HAS more
detail, but it *is* noisy looking v. the digital shot.

On a computer monitor . . . yes. In the final print . . . not often, and especially not with some
ISO 100 films. Really hate any grain or noise . . . post process a film scan, and print digitally
.. . . end result, no difference. The one variable is that scanning and post processing take
skills and experience, so it is likely easier for most to accomplish acceptable prints using
direct digital . . . likely even easier going from camera to printer, with no computer
interaction.

Those who don't perceive
this detail wander away a tad confused ... the 'clean' digital shot is
'pleasing' to them ... which for most purposes meets the need.


Okay, "pleasing" is an aesthetic consideration. If the image is compelling, it does not matter
how it originated. Even still images on a television can have a very nice "clean" look, but we
know the display technology is nothing special. Compared to the ultra low resolution of paintings
.. . . then something completely different. If you like that "clean" look from direct digital, and
it suits your creative vision, then that is what you should use.




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.

Agree. Even printing 8.5 x 11 on my Epson from E100S, the noise I clearly see
in the full (39 Mpix) scan is pretty much crunched out on paper. And the colors
are wonderfully saturated, edges crisp, etc...


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.

...if it's just a monitor then a 4 Mpix camera would provide all the over
sampling in the world...

Probably why the 3 MP to 4 MP digital P&S market is the largest volume segment (other than camera
phones).



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.

Agree. While I had been considering MF for portrait, last year a natural
landscape photographer brought in some 6x7 Velvia and E100S to our club. the
detail was of course staggering when projected and his Ciba's were rich and
crisp. This is why, while not requitted, MF remains in plans.

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.

The way I understood it in that contexct was that he's being paid by the hour to
produce catalog images, so I don't believe licencing of the images was an issue.

Okay, that working model is much more like product photography. I would hesitate to term him a
"fashion photographer".


I believe he uploaded the entire take to them and that they would decide which
images they would actually use.


Much more of a catalogue type of working mode. In such a situation, the volume of images is often
the most important issue for the client, since the images would not represent a primary end usage
of advertising. Fashion photography often ties directly to advertising of those fashion, though
the catalogue industry is a different direction. Definitely what he is doing often pays well, and
is good work, though the stringent creative requirement is somewhat lessened.



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.

Well, that's what he said. Maybe he's a good photog, but not so hot a
businessman. I don't know. Possibly he was taking a fee off the top of the
other photogs, again I don't know.

Okay, quite valid a point. While it is possible for someone to be good at what they do, it is
easy to not be quite that good in business aspects. Many of us are still learning that as an
ongoing process.




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.

You go beyond 'photography' into all of the above. I've met only one pro around
here who does similar "added value" work.

The "value added" services became much more of a requirement a few years ago locally. They seem
to be a more important aspect all the time, and in many more market areas. It can only be an
advantage to be able to offer more services for the end client uses.

I was about to write that for CD's,
digital should be more than enough ... however with the need to produce
associated posters and so on, MF (or high end digital!) would be needed.

Very true, though high end digital is balanced against a cost to profits model. There are many
ways to factor that into the billings, though for me (and some others) billing out film expenses
is quite easy to calculate.


. . . . . . . . . . . .


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.

"several" is not the majority of working pros.

My guess is that the majority of working professional photographers is still photojournalists. I
would not even think about going in that direction, and my needs are quite different. I maintain
respect for those individuals that choose that route, the it looks to be an increasingly hostile
environment (contracts, competition, costs).

One of the more unusual would be
(as I've mentioned in the past) the lady in Manhatten with the monster Polaroid
camera. Elsa Dormund (something like that).

There are a few 20" by 24" Polaroid cameras in use. Mark Laita has one going in the Los Angeles
area. Some of the few of these around the world are available for rent, and I hope to try one out
at some point. Very specialized, though a different approach to imaging compared to many other
gear choices.


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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?

Of course, but as often stated nobody is compelled to under achieve. We're all
challenged to achieve more... better equipment won't hold back the photog as
much as lesser ... as usual I maintain that point.

You might find that some "restrictive" equipment can drive a completely different creative
direction, and provide a very unique vision. I like high technology just as much as the next guy,
but there is something interesting in more finite and "restrictive" gear. You should try it on
occasion . . . you might discover something you had not considered previously.



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).

From an 8 bit color pixel (R or G or B), the lowest bit represents all but a
smidgen of the information in the lower 8 bits of a 16 bit pixel. I've not seen
(in a well scanned image of a well exposed reversal) any evidence that a 16 bit
pixel is really needed to avoid banding or blocking in a print... now I only
print at home up to 8.5 x 11 so maybe that disguises it a bit.

If you do desktop inkjet prints, on any printer without PostScript control, then it is unlikely
you would notice much difference. Most desktop, non PostScript, inkjet printers have an RGB
interpreter, with a somewhat limited colour space, and the need to complicate a workflow would
bring very little benefit in the end prints.



(I also downloaded the Windohs version of the Gimp to get 16 bit editing for
free... no deal ... that v. appears to be 8 bit/channel only...).


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.

I'll check it out ... gotta run ... doing some photography with my SO this
evening...


I hope you enjoy that one. It is much easier to understand than most reports.



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. ;-)

Where the hell did I do that! ;-) this convo has wandered and still hasn't
answered the critial question:

If the only critical question is "can direct digital at 35 mm frame size replace medium format
film", then the only answer is "sometimes". There are too many variables to only allow one
definitive answer.

Ciao!

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

Alan Browne wrote:

Gordon Moat wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
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.

That's describing the qualities all right, but now we're drifting from the
origin of the topic ... eg: can this camera fill a lot of things done on MF
presently ... and the answer is most positively yes. All things? Of course not.

Part of what I'm getting at, and we see this from time to time, is that in a
side by side comparison of a film v. digital shot, the scanned film HAS more
detail, but it *is* noisy looking v. the digital shot.

On a computer monitor . . . yes. In the final print . . . not often, and especially not with some
ISO 100 films. Really hate any grain or noise . . . post process a film scan, and print digitally
.. . . end result, no difference. The one variable is that scanning and post processing take
skills and experience, so it is likely easier for most to accomplish acceptable prints using
direct digital . . . likely even easier going from camera to printer, with no computer
interaction.

Those who don't perceive
this detail wander away a tad confused ... the 'clean' digital shot is
'pleasing' to them ... which for most purposes meets the need.


Okay, "pleasing" is an aesthetic consideration. If the image is compelling, it does not matter
how it originated. Even still images on a television can have a very nice "clean" look, but we
know the display technology is nothing special. Compared to the ultra low resolution of paintings
.. . . then something completely different. If you like that "clean" look from direct digital, and
it suits your creative vision, then that is what you should use.




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.

Agree. Even printing 8.5 x 11 on my Epson from E100S, the noise I clearly see
in the full (39 Mpix) scan is pretty much crunched out on paper. And the colors
are wonderfully saturated, edges crisp, etc...


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.

...if it's just a monitor then a 4 Mpix camera would provide all the over
sampling in the world...

Probably why the 3 MP to 4 MP digital P&S market is the largest volume segment (other than camera
phones).



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.

Agree. While I had been considering MF for portrait, last year a natural
landscape photographer brought in some 6x7 Velvia and E100S to our club. the
detail was of course staggering when projected and his Ciba's were rich and
crisp. This is why, while not requitted, MF remains in plans.

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.

The way I understood it in that contexct was that he's being paid by the hour to
produce catalog images, so I don't believe licencing of the images was an issue.

Okay, that working model is much more like product photography. I would hesitate to term him a
"fashion photographer".


I believe he uploaded the entire take to them and that they would decide which
images they would actually use.


Much more of a catalogue type of working mode. In such a situation, the volume of images is often
the most important issue for the client, since the images would not represent a primary end usage
of advertising. Fashion photography often ties directly to advertising of those fashion, though
the catalogue industry is a different direction. Definitely what he is doing often pays well, and
is good work, though the stringent creative requirement is somewhat lessened.



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.

Well, that's what he said. Maybe he's a good photog, but not so hot a
businessman. I don't know. Possibly he was taking a fee off the top of the
other photogs, again I don't know.

Okay, quite valid a point. While it is possible for someone to be good at what they do, it is
easy to not be quite that good in business aspects. Many of us are still learning that as an
ongoing process.




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.

You go beyond 'photography' into all of the above. I've met only one pro around
here who does similar "added value" work.

The "value added" services became much more of a requirement a few years ago locally. They seem
to be a more important aspect all the time, and in many more market areas. It can only be an
advantage to be able to offer more services for the end client uses.

I was about to write that for CD's,
digital should be more than enough ... however with the need to produce
associated posters and so on, MF (or high end digital!) would be needed.

Very true, though high end digital is balanced against a cost to profits model. There are many
ways to factor that into the billings, though for me (and some others) billing out film expenses
is quite easy to calculate.


. . . . . . . . . . . .


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.

"several" is not the majority of working pros.

My guess is that the majority of working professional photographers is still photojournalists. I
would not even think about going in that direction, and my needs are quite different. I maintain
respect for those individuals that choose that route, the it looks to be an increasingly hostile
environment (contracts, competition, costs).

One of the more unusual would be
(as I've mentioned in the past) the lady in Manhatten with the monster Polaroid
camera. Elsa Dormund (something like that).

There are a few 20" by 24" Polaroid cameras in use. Mark Laita has one going in the Los Angeles
area. Some of the few of these around the world are available for rent, and I hope to try one out
at some point. Very specialized, though a different approach to imaging compared to many other
gear choices.


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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?

Of course, but as often stated nobody is compelled to under achieve. We're all
challenged to achieve more... better equipment won't hold back the photog as
much as lesser ... as usual I maintain that point.

You might find that some "restrictive" equipment can drive a completely different creative
direction, and provide a very unique vision. I like high technology just as much as the next guy,
but there is something interesting in more finite and "restrictive" gear. You should try it on
occasion . . . you might discover something you had not considered previously.



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).

From an 8 bit color pixel (R or G or B), the lowest bit represents all but a
smidgen of the information in the lower 8 bits of a 16 bit pixel. I've not seen
(in a well scanned image of a well exposed reversal) any evidence that a 16 bit
pixel is really needed to avoid banding or blocking in a print... now I only
print at home up to 8.5 x 11 so maybe that disguises it a bit.

If you do desktop inkjet prints, on any printer without PostScript control, then it is unlikely
you would notice much difference. Most desktop, non PostScript, inkjet printers have an RGB
interpreter, with a somewhat limited colour space, and the need to complicate a workflow would
bring very little benefit in the end prints.



(I also downloaded the Windohs version of the Gimp to get 16 bit editing for
free... no deal ... that v. appears to be 8 bit/channel only...).


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.

I'll check it out ... gotta run ... doing some photography with my SO this
evening...


I hope you enjoy that one. It is much easier to understand than most reports.



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. ;-)

Where the hell did I do that! ;-) this convo has wandered and still hasn't
answered the critial question:

If the only critical question is "can direct digital at 35 mm frame size replace medium format
film", then the only answer is "sometimes". There are too many variables to only allow one
definitive answer.

Ciao!

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

Liberally snipped

Gordon Moat wrote:

Alan Browne wrote:


Gordon Moat wrote:


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.

The way I understood it in that contexct was that he's being paid by the hour to
produce catalog images, so I don't believe licencing of the images was an issue.


Okay, that working model is much more like product photography. I would hesitate to term him a
"fashion photographer".

Well, it was catalogs as opposed to mag layouts ... two different worlds ... one
is selling the details one is selling the image.



I believe he uploaded the entire take to them and that they would decide which
images they would actually use.



Much more of a catalogue type of working mode. In such a situation, the volume of images is often
the most important issue for the client, since the images would not represent a primary end usage
of advertising. Fashion photography often ties directly to advertising of those fashion, though
the catalogue industry is a different direction. Definitely what he is doing often pays well, and
is good work, though the stringent creative requirement is somewhat lessened.

Agree.

Well, that's what he said. Maybe he's a good photog, but not so hot a
businessman. I don't know. Possibly he was taking a fee off the top of the
other photogs, again I don't know.


Okay, quite valid a point. While it is possible for someone to be good at what they do, it is
easy to not be quite that good in business aspects. Many of us are still learning that as an
ongoing process.


You go beyond 'photography' into all of the above. I've met only one pro around
here who does similar "added value" work.


The "value added" services became much more of a requirement a few years ago locally. They seem
to be a more important aspect all the time, and in many more market areas. It can only be an
advantage to be able to offer more services for the end client uses.


I was about to write that for CD's,
digital should be more than enough ... however with the need to produce
associated posters and so on, MF (or high end digital!) would be needed.


Very true, though high end digital is balanced against a cost to profits model. There are many
ways to factor that into the billings, though for me (and some others) billing out film expenses
is quite easy to calculate.

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.

"several" is not the majority of working pros.


My guess is that the majority of working professional photographers is still photojournalists. I
would not even think about going in that direction, and my needs are quite different. I maintain
respect for those individuals that choose that route, the it looks to be an increasingly hostile
environment (contracts, competition, costs).


One of the more unusual would be
(as I've mentioned in the past) the lady in Manhatten with the monster Polaroid
camera. Elsa Dormund (something like that).


There are a few 20" by 24" Polaroid cameras in use. Mark Laita has one going in the Los Angeles
area. Some of the few of these around the world are available for rent, and I hope to try one out
at some point. Very specialized, though a different approach to imaging compared to many other
gear choices.


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


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?

Of course, but as often stated nobody is compelled to under achieve. We're all
challenged to achieve more... better equipment won't hold back the photog as
much as lesser ... as usual I maintain that point.


You might find that some "restrictive" equipment can drive a completely different creative
direction, and provide a very unique vision. I like high technology just as much as the next guy,
but there is something interesting in more finite and "restrictive" gear. You should try it on
occasion . . . you might discover something you had not considered previously.

Early this Spring I used 'disposable' cameras. Really forced composition.
Unfortunately the resulting images were somewhat bland in color and soft as hell.

I plan to buy a 500C/CM one day. 80 f/2.8 and hopefully a 150... that should be
pretty restrictive right there, but with quality optics and film. (How the hell
will I get it scanned is another matter, not to mention B&W printing).




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).

From an 8 bit color pixel (R or G or B), the lowest bit represents all but a
smidgen of the information in the lower 8 bits of a 16 bit pixel. I've not seen
(in a well scanned image of a well exposed reversal) any evidence that a 16 bit
pixel is really needed to avoid banding or blocking in a print... now I only
print at home up to 8.5 x 11 so maybe that disguises it a bit.


If you do desktop inkjet prints, on any printer without PostScript control, then it is unlikely
you would notice much difference. Most desktop, non PostScript, inkjet printers have an RGB
interpreter, with a somewhat limited colour space, and the need to complicate a workflow would
bring very little benefit in the end prints.


Where the hell did I do that! ;-) this convo has wandered and still hasn't
answered the critial question:


If the only critical question is "can direct digital at 35 mm frame size replace medium format
film", then the only answer is "sometimes". There are too many variables to only allow one
definitive answer.

All that for "sometimes".

Sheesh!

Cheers,
Alan


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

Yeah it is, yeah you are Ignorant and stupid. You are Ignorantly
crossposting political viewpoints to multiple unrelated newsgroups.

Goodbye Ignoramus.
PLONK!

In article ,
Mojtaba wrote:

Ignorance is worse than stupidity.

Mojtaba
--
?
?
?
?
LOL

Yeah it is, yeah you are Ignorant and stupid. You are Ignorantly
crossposting political viewpoints to multiple unrelated newsgroups.

Goodbye Ignoramus.
PLONK!

In article ,
Mojtaba wrote:

Ignorance is worse than stupidity.

Mojtaba
--
?
?
?
?
LOL

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 15:42:50 GMT, Udie Lafing
wrote:

Yeah it is, yeah you are Ignorant and stupid. You are Ignorantly
crossposting political viewpoints to multiple unrelated newsgroups.

Shut up your dirty racist. Where the F... where you when your racist
pal crossposted?

You are worse than ignorant and more stupid than stupid.

Mojtaba



Goodbye Ignoramus.
PLONK!

In article ,
Mojtaba wrote:

Ignorance is worse than stupidity.

Mojtaba

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 12:08:00 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

Dallas wrote:

Even compared to Spudbucket's lambasting of Nikon and their third-rate
equipment?

Replying to this disassociated thread (with a x-post) hardly helps your
cause.

???

Something has gone wrong with my newsreader. I don't normally get
crossposted stuff and I can't explain how this post of yours has ended up
outside of the line of the original thread. I will have to re-install PAN.

But what "cause" are you on about?

--
Dallas www.dallasdahms.com

"You know you're right! You're bloody well right!
You've bloody got a right to say!" ~ Supertramp

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 12:08:00 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

Dallas wrote:

Even compared to Spudbucket's lambasting of Nikon and their third-rate
equipment?

Replying to this disassociated thread (with a x-post) hardly helps your
cause.

???

Something has gone wrong with my newsreader. I don't normally get
crossposted stuff and I can't explain how this post of yours has ended up
outside of the line of the original thread. I will have to re-install PAN.

But what "cause" are you on about?

--
Dallas www.dallasdahms.com

"You know you're right! You're bloody well right!
You've bloody got a right to say!" ~ Supertramp

Recently, Mojtaba posted:

Ignorance is worse than stupidity.

I disagree. Stupidity is deliberate, while we're all ignorant in some area
or other.

Neil