A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » General Photography » In The Darkroom
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Top photographers condemn digital age



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old October 4th 04, 12:27 AM
Gregory Blank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Tom Phillips wrote:

That's really what digital is about: money. But the problem for
professional work as I see it is what's the benefit of a streamlined
work flow (which in fact requires significant investment not only in
high end digital cameras but constant computer upgrades...) if
at the end of that work flow all you have is the money and not
concrete images? A professional's portfolio is what gets them work.
I've never interviewed with a potential client yet who wasn't
"Oooh!" and Ahh!" impressed when they see an actual 4x5
transparency. Digital just doesn't have the same impact.


No doubt.

A lot of things can go wrong with electronics; I witnessed a
photographer recently lose all his images due to a bad storage
card (don't let anayone tell you these storage cards are reliable...)
Film is less problematic and more reliable. I'd always rather
rather add the extra step of shooting and then scanning the image.


Again I concur. Still with dying labs all around means I'll have to
process my own C41 & E6,.... as long as I can get chemistry.

--
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
  #22  
Old October 4th 04, 01:05 AM
Tom Phillips
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Gregory Blank wrote:

In article ,
Tom Phillips wrote:

That's really what digital is about: money. But the problem for
professional work as I see it is what's the benefit of a streamlined
work flow (which in fact requires significant investment not only in
high end digital cameras but constant computer upgrades...) if
at the end of that work flow all you have is the money and not
concrete images? A professional's portfolio is what gets them work.
I've never interviewed with a potential client yet who wasn't
"Oooh!" and Ahh!" impressed when they see an actual 4x5
transparency. Digital just doesn't have the same impact.


No doubt.

A lot of things can go wrong with electronics; I witnessed a
photographer recently lose all his images due to a bad storage
card (don't let anayone tell you these storage cards are reliable...)
Film is less problematic and more reliable. I'd always rather
rather add the extra step of shooting and then scanning the image.


Again I concur. Still with dying labs all around means I'll have to
process my own C41 & E6,.... as long as I can get chemistry.


You'll get better quality if you run your own
E6 w/control strips one shot than with any lab's
dip and dunk or machine. You just need to run
enough conrtrol strips to adjust the chemistry
per batch. Course you need status A densitometer.
Very economical when processing large batches of
film (far less than labs charge per sheet.) For
just a few sheets labs are cheaper.

OTOH, if you want a good lab to send out to try
www.reedphoto.com I know Bob Reed and Reeds does
E6 and lab work for many well known photographers.



--
Tom Phillips
  #23  
Old October 4th 04, 02:15 AM
Phil Glaser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Conventional black-and-white photography is the most different from digital
(in terms of ability to achieve high quality). It is the one most worth
preserving as a craft.


I have seen this statement made before, but I'm not sure I understand
why this should be so. This is one of the reasons I was so surprised
about Ilford's woes: if traditional black and white is stronger than
digital black and white, why aren't these materials still selling? Can
you elaborate?

--Phil
  #24  
Old October 4th 04, 02:54 AM
Michael A. Covington
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Phil Glaser" wrote in message
m...
Conventional black-and-white photography is the most different from
digital
(in terms of ability to achieve high quality). It is the one most worth
preserving as a craft.


I have seen this statement made before, but I'm not sure I understand
why this should be so. This is one of the reasons I was so surprised
about Ilford's woes: if traditional black and white is stronger than
digital black and white, why aren't these materials still selling? Can
you elaborate?


It's an art where the right things *are* controllable: contrast, density
range... It's not a juggling act like color printing. That's why it
appeals to me as a craft.

The commercial demand for it has dropped nearly to zero as newspapers
switched first to color film, then to digital imaging.


  #25  
Old October 4th 04, 03:27 PM
The Wogster
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Tom Phillips wrote:
In article ,
Gregory Blank wrote:


Ok what do you need a darkroom for then?

In article ,
Helge Buddenborg wrote:


That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it, "Digital Photography is
"GREAT".



What he misses (completely) is that digital imaging,
though an imaging medium, is not a *photographic* medium.
The physics simply don't support this.

And when people begin to see through the marketing hype
and in 20 years lose all those non-existent image files
on their hard drives they will realize film is the better
medium. There simply is no permanent archival storage
for digital and never will be, since as mere data
it's dependent on 100% on electronics rather than
concrete materials.


There is no permanent archival storage for data, yet. However
photographs are not the only data that need this kind of storage, so
active work is being done in this area all the time. There are methods
that work, for example take a solid gold disc, now burn pits into it
with a laser beam, similar to a CD master. Since gold does not corrode,
or tarnish, the data would exist until the Sun goes into melt-down.

What is really needed, is a very long term storage, something on the
order of 500 years or so. This would be longer then most photographs
need to be retained, and longer then film will last, would need to last
under less then ideal conditions. The problem is that you would need to
wait 500 years to see if it lasts 500 years.

W





Manufacturers market digital as "photography" instead
of data imaging because that's the only way they can
sell it. Digital cameras aren't "cameras," they're
scanners. Consumers buy into it for the convenience, but
experienced photographers are better educated. As the
ISO has noted digital doesn't produce a photograph,
it produces representational image data. Film, OTOH,
is a permanent tangible image, not "data." And that's
why film will always be around.

  #26  
Old October 4th 04, 06:32 PM
Phil Glaser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Michael A. Covington" wrote in message ...
"Phil Glaser" wrote in message
m...
Conventional black-and-white photography is the most different from
digital
(in terms of ability to achieve high quality). It is the one most worth
preserving as a craft.


I have seen this statement made before, but I'm not sure I understand
why this should be so. This is one of the reasons I was so surprised
about Ilford's woes: if traditional black and white is stronger than
digital black and white, why aren't these materials still selling? Can
you elaborate?


It's an art where the right things *are* controllable: contrast, density
range... It's not a juggling act like color printing. That's why it
appeals to me as a craft.


Do you mean, for example, that digital does not have an equivalent of
N+1, N+2 development, such that your only means of controlling
contrast is manipulating the image after the fact? If so, what is it
about the contrast and desnity controls with film that make them
better than the way in which you can manipulate a digital image?

And, are there other areas in which film is better for B&W image
control?

I ask these questions largely out of my ignorance of digital -- I
really don't undersatnd the technology as well as I do film technology
(which still isn't saying much . . . ) -- but also because I am in
the throes of figuring out how much effort I will be putting into
learning digital in the near future.


Thanks.

--Phil
  #27  
Old October 5th 04, 12:54 AM
AnonyMouse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"The Wogster" wrote in message
news
There is no permanent archival storage for data, yet. However photographs
are not the only data that need this kind of storage, so active work is
being done in this area all the time. There are methods that work, for
example take a solid gold disc, now burn pits into it with a laser beam,
similar to a CD master. Since gold does not corrode, or tarnish, the data
would exist until the Sun goes into melt-down.

What is really needed, is a very long term storage, something on the order
of 500 years or so. This would be longer then most photographs need to be
retained, and longer then film will last, would need to last under less
then ideal conditions. The problem is that you would need to wait 500
years to see if it lasts 500 years.

W


Gold disk is fine and dandy, but ...
Do you have a drive that can get data off of my 8" floppy disks from very
early CCD image capture devices? How about something for my Syquest disks
from 10 years ago??
The medium (in this case, gold disk) is not an ends, but only a small part
of an entire line of equipment that would be necesary for data retrieval.
Within our lifetimes, there will be thousands of great images that will be
lost due to the obsolescence of electronic storage media (not to mention the
millions of poor images).


  #29  
Old October 5th 04, 03:16 AM
The Wogster
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

AnonyMouse wrote:
"The Wogster" wrote in message
news

There is no permanent archival storage for data, yet. However photographs
are not the only data that need this kind of storage, so active work is
being done in this area all the time. There are methods that work, for
example take a solid gold disc, now burn pits into it with a laser beam,
similar to a CD master. Since gold does not corrode, or tarnish, the data
would exist until the Sun goes into melt-down.

What is really needed, is a very long term storage, something on the order
of 500 years or so. This would be longer then most photographs need to be
retained, and longer then film will last, would need to last under less
then ideal conditions. The problem is that you would need to wait 500
years to see if it lasts 500 years.

W



Gold disk is fine and dandy, but ...
Do you have a drive that can get data off of my 8" floppy disks from very
early CCD image capture devices? How about something for my Syquest disks
from 10 years ago??
The medium (in this case, gold disk) is not an ends, but only a small part
of an entire line of equipment that would be necesary for data retrieval.
Within our lifetimes, there will be thousands of great images that will be
lost due to the obsolescence of electronic storage media (not to mention the
millions of poor images).


So because prior methods have failed to last, then new ones will be
condemned to the same failure? There are three issues with long term
digital storage. First is the media, it must be able to survive for an
extended period of time, say 500 years. Something based on gold is most
likely to have that kind of lifespan. Note film does NOT.

Next you need an agreed upon technology, in other words the machine to
read the gold disk, needs to have long term standards compliance, so
that a machine made 500 years from now, can still read the disk.

Third the data format needs to be standardized and supported so that 500
years from now, the software will be able to read it.

Currently the standards are not there and nor is the technology.
However 5 or 10 or 25 years from now, it may be.

W


  #30  
Old October 5th 04, 07:04 AM
Ken Nadvornick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"AnonyMouse" wrote:

Gold disk is fine and dandy, but ...
Do you have a drive that can get data off of my 8" floppy disks from

very
early CCD image capture devices? How about something for my Syquest disks
from 10 years ago??
The medium (in this case, gold disk) is not an ends, but only a small

part
of an entire line of equipment that would be necesary for data retrieval.
Within our lifetimes, there will be thousands of great images that will

be
lost due to the obsolescence of electronic storage media (not to mention

the
millions of poor images).


Heh, heh...

From a Voyager spacecraft Web site:

----------

"The Voyager message is carried by a phonograph record - a 12-inch
gold-plated copper disk containing sounds and images selected to portray the
diversity of life and culture on Earth. The contents of the record were
selected for NASA by a committee chaired by Carl Sagan of Cornell
University. Dr. Sagan and his associates assembled 115 images and a variety
of natural sounds, such as those made by surf, wind and thunder, birds,
whales, and other animals. To this they added musical selections from
different cultures and eras, and spoken greetings from Earth-people in 55
languages, and printed messages from President Carter and U.N. Secretary
General Waldheim.

Each record is encased in a protective aluminum jacket, together with a
cartridge and needle. Instructions, in symbolic language, explain the origin
of the spacecraft and indicate how the record is to be played; The 115
images are encoded in analog form. The remainder of the record is in audio,
designed to be played at 16-2/3 revolutions per second. It contains the
spoken greetings, beginning with Akkadian, which was spoken in Sumer about
six thousand years ago, and ending with Wu, a modern Chinese dialect.
Following the section on the sounds of Earth, there is an eclectic 95 minute
selection of music, including both Eastern and Western classics and a
variety of ethnic music."

----------

It's only been - what? - 27 years (1977) since the twin Voyager
interplanetary probes were launched and the technology to read that golden
phonograph record is already extinct to all but a small group of
afficianados. (At least here on Earth.) I wonder... what will be the
situation in another 475 years?

Nice of them to include the replacement cartridge and needle, though. A
Radio Shack might be hard to come by...

Ken


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
3rd RFD: rec.photo.digital.slr Thad Digital Photography 86 December 14th 04 05:45 AM
3rd RFD: rec.photo.digital.slr Thad 35mm Photo Equipment 31 December 14th 04 05:45 AM
Will digital photography ever stabilize? Alfred Molon Digital Photography 37 June 30th 04 08:11 PM
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? Michael Weinstein, M.D. In The Darkroom 13 January 24th 04 10:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.