Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs

(Bob Monaghan) wrote in message ...

When the industry is
projecting disposable digicams with 16MP sensors for under $100?

Bob, how soon are these likely to hit the shelves? a $100 16MP camera
sounds frightening for someone heavily invested in film right now?
Heck, even a $1000 16mp is.

Recently, Raphael Bustin posted:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 23:47:42 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

I think I never spent much more than a few hours
or at most an evening or two on a print, back in
the wet darkroom. And now that I think of it, it's
pretty much the same sort of routine nowadays
in the digital realm, per image. Of course, some
take more effort than others, for any number of
reasons.

That's very true for b/w wet printing. I didn't find it to be true for
color wet printing.

We're obviously dealing in different leagues
and worlds, Neil. Very little relevance from
yours to mine, or vice versa, it seems.

That may be a bit of a stretch. The main difference appears to be that I
have need of a wider range of technologies, and therefore have a basis for
comparison.

Regards, peace.

Neil

Recently, Fil Ament posted:

In article ,
Raphael Bustin wrote:

Having learned from you that a fine 20"x20" print might
cost $100 to produce, I now appreciate that this would be
an unfair imposition on you. Again, I assumed that you
made your own prints and that the costs were comparable
and fairly minor. Sorry to have troubled you.

I expect even a 20"x 20" print is in the few dollar range
certainly not in the 100. Most of the price for a print regardless
of how its created is in the mark up and or labor.

That depends on how they're printed. A 20"x20" Frontier print doesn't cost
much. An optical print does, at least around here. If you only consider
the cost of materials, there wouldn't be much difference. But, labor is
significantly different between these two methods. But then, so are the
results.

Neil

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 10:20:37 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

Recently, Raphael Bustin posted:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 23:47:42 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

I think I never spent much more than a few hours
or at most an evening or two on a print, back in
the wet darkroom. And now that I think of it, it's
pretty much the same sort of routine nowadays
in the digital realm, per image. Of course, some
take more effort than others, for any number of
reasons.

That's very true for b/w wet printing. I didn't find it to be true for
color wet printing.

Please explain. I don't understand that
comment at all.

We're obviously dealing in different leagues
and worlds, Neil. Very little relevance from
yours to mine, or vice versa, it seems.

That may be a bit of a stretch. The main difference appears to be that I
have need of a wider range of technologies, and therefore have a basis for
comparison.


From a practical perspective I'm only talking
about two or three output technologies, all of
which I've seen and used before -- traditional
wet prints, inkjet, and LightJet/Lambda.

Any comparison I had in mind was between
these three. I really don't know how image-
setters entered the discussion, except
perhaps to end it.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

In article . net,
"Neil Gould" wrote:

Recently, Fil Ament posted:

In article ,
Raphael Bustin wrote:

Having learned from you that a fine 20"x20" print might
cost $100 to produce, I now appreciate that this would be
an unfair imposition on you. Again, I assumed that you
made your own prints and that the costs were comparable
and fairly minor. Sorry to have troubled you.

I expect even a 20"x 20" print is in the few dollar range
certainly not in the 100. Most of the price for a print regardless
of how its created is in the mark up and or labor.

That depends on how they're printed. A 20"x20" Frontier print doesn't cost
much. An optical print does, at least around here. If you only consider
the cost of materials, there wouldn't be much difference. But, labor is
significantly different between these two methods. But then, so are the
results.

Neil

That was my point.
--
The joy of a forever Unknown Artist is the mystery and potential
of a Blank canvas.

This is a provision for the mind's eye.
I see the lights go on, but realize of course no one's home.

In article ,
Raphael Bustin wrote:

I really don't know how image-
setters entered the discussion, except
perhaps to end it.

I think the point was made because digi cams
were intially discussed and the requirements
for offset preclude most photographers from
using digicams for several reasons, mainly the cost of
a high enough res camera to produce
exceptable results. It can be done but then your buying into
a system that has alot more volitiality in terms of required
upgrades over time.

The second more profound reason especially with LF & perhaps MF cameras
is that the photographer is somewhat blind to the result, IMOP its good to an extent.
We when using film learn to be very attuned to the whole process. For me as I step away
from the scene when using a film camera I have sense of accomplishment and worry,
that worry breeds a sense of excitement when I get my film developed and all is well.

True some unforseen things present themselves like misprocessing and obvious camera
exposure errors, but as one does more photographing those errors diminish.
I have also found an interesting thing, because I have multiple cameras I use the formats
at the same time sometimes, for me it definately deminishes the experience,
one format at a time is better. There's more to this but for sake of getting other things
done today I'll leave it thier for commentary.

Here's a couple of prime examples:

http://www.arizonahighways.com/page....k604&nav=photo
http://www.arizonahighways.com/page....k803&nav=photo
--
The joy of a forever Unknown Artist is the mystery and potential
of a Blank canvas.

This is a provision for the mind's eye.
I see the lights go on, but realize of course no one's home.

(Bob Monaghan) wrote

When the industry is projecting disposable digicams
with 16MP sensors for under $100?

From: (Mike Henley)

Bob, how soon are these likely to hit the shelves?

Yeah Bob, how soon ARE these likely to hit the shelves? LOL ...

Bob is confusing marketing hype designed to promote a struggling company's
product line with reality. He's referring to a four year old promise (four
years is about two lifetimes in digital sensor size, btw) of such a cheap,
ubiquitous product by Carver Mead when he was trying to drum up interest in
Foveon and its products. I lived in Sillycon Valley for several years and was
involved with a couple of start-ups (which is why I was able to retire young
and happy) and this is part of a common strategy to create buzz about a new,
untested product in hopes someone will get suckered in and buy it and investors
will hand over boatloads of money when you have your IPO.

Four years later Foveon is shipping only two sensors, a puny 1.5 Mpixel version
that until recently was used by exactly ZERO cameras (recently picked up by
Polaroid for one model ... why should it sell when 4 Mpixels are so common?)
and a 3.4 Mpixel sensor used by one of the lowest rated camera companies,
Sigma, in two slow-selling dSLR models. None of the big players like Nikon or
Canon has shown any interest in these products.

Please note that for practically everyone in the world the pixel count is the
total number of pixels in the final image array, ie, a 2,000 x 3,000 pixel
array would equate to a 6 Mpix sensor size. Foveon has a unique sensing
structure which takes separate R,G and B channel readings at each sensor site
(which in theory does offer some advantages) so they claim 3x as many pixels as
the actual array has. In other words, they claim their 2,268 x 1,512 pixel
array has 10.2 Mpixels when in fact it has 3.4 Mpix.

In other words, if/when they come out with a 5.3 Mpixel count sensor using
normal math they'll likely call it 16 Mpixels anyway, for those who are more
impressed with the sizzle than the steak, I guess.

Yeah Bob, how soon are "disposable digicams with 16 MP sensors for under $100"
hitting the shelves

Bill

Recently, Raphael Bustin posted:

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 10:20:37 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

Recently, Raphael Bustin posted:

I think I never spent much more than a few hours
or at most an evening or two on a print, back in
the wet darkroom. And now that I think of it, it's
pretty much the same sort of routine nowadays
in the digital realm, per image. Of course, some
take more effort than others, for any number of
reasons.

That's very true for b/w wet printing. I didn't find it to be true
for color wet printing.

Please explain. I don't understand that
comment at all.

I don't do b/w wet printing in total darkness, relying on timers and
temperature controllers. One can "play" with any/all of the variables in
any step of the process to get the desired results. It's a very
interactive process. Not so with color printing. Color isn't even able to
be assessed unless the print has completely dried. You can't "play" with
any of the variables involved in processing. Therefore, making corrections
is typically not a same-day process in many situations.

From a practical perspective I'm only talking
about two or three output technologies, all of
which I've seen and used before -- traditional
wet prints, inkjet, and LightJet/Lambda.

Any comparison I had in mind was between
these three. I really don't know how image-
setters entered the discussion, except
perhaps to end it.

Imagesetters entered into the discussion via comments about screening
resolutions, inkjets and dot gain. I didn't go into the relevance of the
requisite contone image characteristics to optimize for screening, as I
thought that to be too much of a tangent. For me, the bottom line is that
the subject and intended usage determines the "best" output technology,
not the technology itself.

Neil

Fil Ament wrote:

In article ,
Raphael Bustin wrote:

I really don't know how image-
setters entered the discussion, except
perhaps to end it.

I think the point was made because digi cams
were intially discussed and the requirements
for offset preclude most photographers from
using digicams for several reasons, mainly the cost of
a high enough res camera to produce
exceptable results. It can be done but then your buying into
a system that has alot more volitiality in terms of required
upgrades over time.

This explains some of my concerns fairly well. I was one of the people who brought up
commercial printing technologies, since it is a concern for my work. However, I think
professionals with those requirements are the few on this news group.



The second more profound reason especially with LF & perhaps MF cameras
is that the photographer is somewhat blind to the result, IMOP its good to an extent.
We when using film learn to be very attuned to the whole process. For me as I step away
from the scene when using a film camera I have sense of accomplishment and worry,
that worry breeds a sense of excitement when I get my film developed and all is well.


Somewhat agree, though confidence comes with experience. You have likely been doing this
much longer than I, though I think a certain level of confidence is required to be a
professional.


True some unforseen things present themselves like misprocessing and obvious camera
exposure errors, but as one does more photographing those errors diminish.
I have also found an interesting thing, because I have multiple cameras I use the formats
at the same time sometimes, for me it definately deminishes the experience,
one format at a time is better. There's more to this but for sake of getting other things
done today I'll leave it thier for commentary.

Here's a couple of prime examples:

http://www.arizonahighways.com/page....k604&nav=photo
http://www.arizonahighways.com/page....k803&nav=photo

Those are some of the few articles that discuss this. There were a couple articles in Photo
Techniques magazine that also went into some of these issues, though they were also
criticized by some. I doubt it would be possible to present any information to proponents of
either film or digital to cause any change of thoughts or biases.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com
http://www.agstudiopro.com Coming Soon!

In article ,
Gordon Moat wrote:

Fil Ament wrote:

I think the point was made because digi cams
were intially discussed and the requirements
for offset preclude most photographers from
using digicams for several reasons, mainly the cost of
a high enough res camera to produce
exceptable results. It can be done but then your buying into
a system that has alot more volitiality in terms of required
upgrades over time.

This explains some of my concerns fairly well. I was one of the people who brought up
commercial printing technologies, since it is a concern for my work. However, I think
professionals with those requirements are the few on this news group.

It concerns me and my work.

The second more profound reason especially with LF & perhaps MF cameras
is that the photographer is somewhat blind to the result, IMOP its good to an extent.
We when using film learn to be very attuned to the whole process. For me as I step away
from the scene when using a film camera I have sense of accomplishment and worry,
that worry breeds a sense of excitement when I get my film developed and all is well.

Somewhat agree, though confidence comes with experience. You have likely been doing this
much longer than I, though I think a certain level of confidence is required to be a
professional.

True some unforseen things present themselves like misprocessing and obvious camera
exposure errors, but as one does more photographing those errors diminish.
I have also found an interesting thing, because I have multiple cameras I use the formats
at the same time sometimes, for me it definately deminishes the experience,
one format at a time is better. There's more to this but for sake of getting other things
done today I'll leave it thier for commentary.

Here's a couple of prime examples:

http://www.arizonahighways.com/page....k604&nav=photo
http://www.arizonahighways.com/page....k803&nav=photo

Those are some of the few articles that discuss this. There were a couple articles in Photo
Techniques magazine that also went into some of these issues, though they were also
criticized by some. I doubt it would be possible to present any information to proponents of
either film or digital to cause any change of thoughts or biases.

Its sadly the old lineal mindset. I changed my mind this year and bought my D70. I like the Camera
but probably would not do it over again at this point. On a similar vein I went out last week
and blew 1400 on a new F100 and a 28-200 zoom now thats a blast!!! The lenses from the F100
will work on the D70 so theres a method to that madness.
--
The joy of a forever Unknown Artist is the mystery and potential
of a Blank canvas.

This is a provision for the mind's eye.
I see the lights go on, but realize of course no one's home.