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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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). |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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 | |
|
|
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 |