Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 48

Thread: Digital Cameras can't make it?

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Originally posted by spider


    thanks CK....but can some kind soul list down the address of these pro-lab, and wat's the charge like ?
    Konota is in Penisula Plaza, Colour Lab at Adelphi. RGB, somewhere in Beach Road and Windsland House or something in Orchard.

    Colour Lab charges $0.40 per 4R print, $3.50 for development. Konota is $0.35 per 4R print.

    Regards
    CK

  2. #22

    Default

    hey ! that's is same price as the autie's shop !!! and charge me S$4.00 for development....!!!

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Originally posted by spider
    hey ! that's is same price as the autie's shop !!! and charge me S$4.00 for development....!!!
    Well, about high time to switch isn't it?

    Regards
    CK

  4. #24
    PixMac
    Guests

    Default

    Originally posted by Jed


    It's come a long way, yes, but they've still got a long way to go. Was looking closely at a 3.34mp image (Minolta S304) today, and it pales significantly in comparison with a D1 image.
    I would say that's improvement. The quality of the digital format will continue to improve. And with more and more people getting on computers, internet etc., digital cameras may just one day become the choice for the "consumer". Pros, serious amateurs, hobbyists etc. would stay on film for the refined advantage.

    Read of a picture of dinosaurs taken with the CP995 (or 990) enlarged to something like 16ft x 10ft banner (or something to that scale) with the help of softwares... cant remember that story in detail but something to that effect...

    PixMac

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    Originally posted by PixMac
    I would say that's improvement. The quality of the digital format will continue to improve. And with more and more people getting on computers, internet etc., digital cameras may just one day become the choice for the "consumer". Pros, serious amateurs, hobbyists etc. would stay on film for the refined advantage.
    Actually, I've been arguing for at least 12 months now that consumers should be on digital (because it fits with consumer shooting), advanced amateurs on film (purely for cost, but now with the 2nd generation digital SLRs coming out the first generation make this no longer an issue), and professionals should seriously start examining digital for their workflow.
    As far as I'm concerned, there is no more "refined advantage" with film.

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Perth Australia
    Posts
    2,548

    Default

    Originally posted by Jed


    Actually, I've been arguing for at least 12 months now that consumers should be on digital (because it fits with consumer shooting), advanced amateurs on film (purely for cost, but now with the 2nd generation digital SLRs coming out the first generation make this no longer an issue), and professionals should seriously start examining digital for their workflow.
    As far as I'm concerned, there is no more "refined advantage" with film.
    I agree with you in genral terms Jed, though I suspect film will be around for quite a few years at all levels.

    Certainly at a professional level digital is making serious inroads in to the profession and when a dinosaur like me is at the point of conversion to digital then the writing is most definitely on the wall for film.

    I have a strong feeling however that the next 2-3 decades will see many pro's running hybrid workflows .. digital in small format and film in larger formats as the cost for MF/LF digital backs isn't warrented in many studios as yet. Couple this with the data storage problems associated with high quality MF backs where image size can be 100MB plus per image and it's not hard to see some limitations for field use and that has implications in at least one major MF field

    There are also some professional applications where digital is impossible to implement at present, such areas include LF astronomy cameras that are using 17x17" film and larger for wide area surveys and so on.

    At a consumer level I suspect it will break down in to two camps, the casual user who will use film and the regular user who will own a digital. It should be remembered that many poor folks in the west such as pensioners, single mums on benefit etc who might only take 1-2 rolls of film a year and who can't afford or justify the outlay for a digital camera but a disposable or cheap P&S they can afford.
    The Ang Moh from Hell
    Professional Photography - many are called, few are chosen!

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    Originally posted by Ian
    I have a strong feeling however that the next 2-3 decades will see many pro's running hybrid workflows .. digital in small format and film in larger formats
    Sounds like me

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Perth Australia
    Posts
    2,548

    Default

    Yup sounds like me too haha
    The Ang Moh from Hell
    Professional Photography - many are called, few are chosen!

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    east side
    Posts
    1,937

    Default

    honestly..i think u can't compare...
    but i think u could really say it all depends alot on the photographer.

  10. #30
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    19

    Default

    And not to forget, the most important thing: Shutter sound . And no, no, not those artificial Mavica shutter sound...

  11. #31

    Default

    I find digital images tend to be more linear and looks more like something from the television. Less latitude than film. The RGB graph for film is "S" shaped, unlike the 45 degrees diagonal line across the RGB graph for digital images.

    Film just wouldn't be something outdated in any time nearer in the future.

    A true photographer is one who uses both equally well. I don't say top photographer, what's the norm for making the judgement? Taking pleasant looking portraits of international celebrities? Or showing the whole world how cruel the hard side of life can be? No doubt digital media is displacing fast into the market, I still firmly believe in learning proper processing and printing techniques, if not, even ancient techniques, as it is to me the true way to understand the image.

    I agree that digital media is super cheap to use, as compared to the traditional means of photography. It's environment friendlier too, and has less health hazards posed to the user. As a frequent user of the darkroom, the elimination of one step of work makes the job even faster. It's fast and easy to use, and saves loads of processing time. I use it too.

  12. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    Originally posted by Scriabinesque
    Just to play devil's advocate:

    I find digital images tend to be more linear and looks more like something from the television. Less latitude than film. The RGB graph for film is "S" shaped, unlike the 45 degrees diagonal line across the RGB graph for digital images.

    This is interesting. I'm not sure what you mean by the RGB graph... are you talking about the development graph? Modern digital cameras have, in practice, as much dynamic range as film once you print both onto paper. Digital does have less latitude than negatives, although even this is arguable; digital certainly has more latitude in the area that really matters - underexposure. But it certainly does not have less latitude than slides. The ability to "push" digital after the exposure and "processing" yields it with fantastic latitude in that sense.

    But I am interested in finding out more about what you mean by the RGB graph?

    A true photographer is one who uses both equally well.

    Why should a true photographer need to use both equally well? Can a true photographer not work solely in one medium? What about photographers 10 years ago who worked only with film because digital didn't exist; were they not "true" photographers?

    I still firmly believe in learning proper processing and printing techniques, if not, even ancient techniques, as it is to me the true way to understand the image.

    Working on the assumption that you can be a "true" photographer (just what is a true photographer anyway?) by just shooting a single medium, in this case digital, what value is learning conventional (I steer clear of the word proper intentionally, there are proper processing and printing techniques for digital as well) processing and printing techniques? As you yourself point out, how do you draw the line? Perhaps everyone should learn how to process Kodachrome, or exposure and develop glass plates. Because I dispute the necessity of mastering both film and digital mediums to become a "true" photographer, this argument of yours similarly goes out the window.

    I agree that digital media is super cheap to use, as compared to the traditional means of photography.

    Not it's not. Not today, although it might well be in the near future. Digital just works out on up front capital cost, and other associated costs with shooting that a lot of people don't take into account. CF cards, CF cards that go missing, the cost of printing, because you will print stuff and print it bigger. Meaning, you don't save 100% of the cost of film and processing to make up for the increased capital of the camera. Professionals are looking at paying 10k for a camera that will last them maybe 2 years; before they were looking at a 3k camera that could last them 10 years.

  13. #33

    Default

    Now I answer you, with a question.

    What and who makes a photographer a photographer?

    On digital media now it is adjustable from the line to an "S" curve with some sacrifices in consistency that seldom exists on film. What I feel about the high cost of digital media is attributed to all the R&D of its technology. It adds to the cost, but mass production would somewhat bring it down to an affordable price. If you're talking about commercial caliber digital technology, it's sure expensive and production is more limited too. I came across and used a couple of Phase One's Lightphase one shot back and Photophase 4x5 viewcamera scanback somewhere three years ago in college. The local dealer was promoting Phase One products then. The school purchased one, and the dealer sponsored the other. Maintainence is high too. One of the backs malfunctioned and the local guys couldn't get it repaired, all we could do was send it back to Holland to get it fixed.

    Time is money too. What is cost to time saved when both are balanced up? It's a convenience, but too much of it brings about some form of ill-discipline. Whenever deadlines were approaching, the graphic design students in my cohort would flock in with their packaging work, packform designs and mockups to our studio, get us to have it shot and eventually have their pictures ready in a matter of minutes, ready for them to finish up their presentation layouts back on their own terminals at home. Then we wouldn't be able to get our work done because their requests can't exactly fit in our schedules.

    What is adaptation too, if the photographer cannot work with whatever given and keep up with times?

    This is interesting. Which school of thought do you belong to? Maybe it's my school of thought, maybe it's just me.
    Last edited by Scriabinesque; 18th April 2002 at 09:43 PM.

  14. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    Originally posted by Scriabinesque
    Now I answer you, with a question.

    What and who makes a photographer a photographer?
    Fairly simple I would have thought. A photographer is someone who takes pictures. But you still haven't answered my question , why does a true photographer need to shoot and master both digital and film?

    On digital media now it is adjustable from the line to an "S" curve with some sacrifices in consistency that seldom exists on film.

    Afraid I'm still not following. I don't understand what this S curve with film is, and how it's a straight line with digital. Exactly what is this curve/straight line you're talking about? As in what is it representative of? Don't think you've really answered my question.

    What is adaptation too, if the photographer cannot work with whatever given and keep up with times?

    Oh, definitely too. But where is the need for backward compatibility? A photographer starting out today surely cannot be blamed for being unfamiliar with film simply because there is very little reason for him to familiarise himself with that medium any longer. Does that make him any bit less of a "true" photographer?

    Not sure I'm keen on that word, "true"... what exactly is a "fake" photographer?

    Is adaptability a requirement for being a "true" photographer? That's like putting a definition on a "good" photographer and as you have already pointed out, it's not a good idea to try to define the good photographer. So a photographer working with film before, takes equally as good photos now as he did before the advent of film, becomes something less than a true photographer because he hasn't been adaptable enough to embrace digital? How so?

    This is interesting. Which school of thought do you belong to?

    My school of thought!

  15. #35

    Default

    Originally posted by Jed
    Fairly simple I would have thought. A photographer is someone who takes pictures. But you still haven't answered my question , why does a true photographer need to shoot and master both digital and film?

    Dictionary-like answer. That's for a photographer. A true photographer knows his images. It is but an image, something highly vulnerable. Detachment. You're trying to probe into how I think. Why?

    The curves are representative of densities. I'm not a technician, so I am not in a good position to explain any further.

    Backward compatibility is an added advantage. It gives the photographer more avenue to experiment. I don't believe a good photogram can be done with the same results digitally. I don't believe a gum arabic print can be done digitally with the same effects too. Can a platinum print be done digitally too? You can't selenium tone a printed digital image. But all those produced effects can be digitised for the image. Never the medium itself.

    Recommend me a few writers from your school of thought, I'm interested.
    Last edited by Scriabinesque; 19th April 2002 at 10:19 PM.

  16. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    Originally posted by Scriabinesque
    Dictionary-like answer. That's for a photographer. A true photographer knows his images. It is but an image, something highly vulnerable. Detachment. You're trying to probe into how I think. Why?

    Well, you just asked me what a photographer was, I just answered... I don't think there's a lot of debate on that definition. However, what I was trying to probe what why you thought it fit to define a "true" photographer. I'm hearing now from you it is one that knows his images. Which seems to be a reasonable enough definition. But I was worried about your original definition, that a true photographer needs to master both film and digital, and I'm still not seeing the basis for that statement from your arguments at all.

    The curves are representative of densities. I'm not a technician, so I am not in a good position to explain any further.

    Erm, but you must have figured out that digital "curves" were straight lines at some point right? Thing is, digital doesn't have a development curve AFAIK, since there isn't a development stage. And you certainly can't use a densitometer at any stage with a digital image. So I'm still not sure what you're on about. And from a theoretical standpoint, I'm not sure that you want your film development curve to be distinctly S shaped... I think I would prefer mine to be as close to straight as possible.

    Backward compatibility is an added advantage. It gives the photographer more avenue to experiment.

    Agreed. But do you need to experiment to be a true photographer? Isn't a true photographer, as per your definition, one who knows the worth of his images? Well, is the value of an image influenced in any way by the process it is created by? Or does the composition and content of the image play the only role in determining an image's worth?

    I don't believe a good photogram can be done with the same results digitally. I don't believe a gum arabic print can be done digitally with the same effects too. Can a platinum print be done digitally too? You can't selenium tone a printed digital image. But all those produced effects can be digitised for the image. Never the medium itself.

    I myself can honestly and without any regret say that I have not attempted all the processes you list, although I have some. Does this make me any less of a photographer? Or any less a true photographer? Okay, you can selenium tone an image, but not the medium itself -- what difference does it make to the final result whether I tone the image or the medium, aside from the archival properties selenium toning adds? None that I can see. And with the latest developments in archival inksets and paper, pigment based digital prints have the potential to outlast even selenium prints.

    I fear some people become traditionalists for the sake of it. And similarly some people become revolutionists for the sake of it. Who are you to judge who a true photographer is, or to demean a photographer because he or she doesn't use a certain process in their learning curve (no pun intended)? (Don't take that personal, that's an argumentative question.) Who are you to question whether the learning path a photographer undertakes is the wrong one, or the one true one?
    Is there a one true one?

  17. #37

    Default

    Good debate, you still haven't answered my question on your school of thought. Recommend me a few writers of yours from your school of thought, as I would like to know what was and is your learning curve too.

    This had always been my original definition. A true photographer is one who knows his image. Then there are senses to worry about too, to knowing his image. Why I say detachment? It was foreign and hard to accept at first when I first learnt that in one of the photography modules I took. I don't think I have to say more on that. Have you figured out? If not, I think you'll have a really fun time finding out. I believe we're on different sides of the palatte.

    It's all grey areas. I can't call myself a traditionalist, neither am I a revolutionary. Maybe a radical?

    Here I am not talking about any archival properties of processes. It is the nature of the particular medium that cannot be replaced. Just the same way how polished granite feels different from concrete. Digital media has excellent archival properties. It could be transported, transferred and reproduced with ease. I doubt any of the processes and techniques I have mentioned has any of that, other than the archival properties of platinum prints.

    I only pity those who hasn't had their hands on the mentioned techniques and processes. I suppose it's always a compromise. Digital has its edge over the traditional counterpart, same goes for the traditional having an edge over digital. Don't you feel the coldness of e-mail messages or e-cards even when it comes with animation and music? And the special feeling of opening a snail letter handwritten on onionskin paper from someone you know that flew all across the globe just to reach you? It's something slow and not so efficient, but what it can hold can hardly be held by technology.

    There's no personal argument here, I just find it a healthy way to exchange ideas, though not exactly very productive for me.

    And talking about different learning curves, some photographers simply betray their artistic integrity and hence spoils the market. But I won't elaborate this any further because photography has penetrated so many aspects of life, and holds different applications in each field. Therefore I would say that a true photographer respects his one true speciality in its application and remains good in other aspects as well. It's very much about work ethics as well. It's just some matter that encompasses many different qualities in technique and artistry as well as ethics.
    Last edited by Scriabinesque; 21st April 2002 at 07:31 PM.

  18. #38
    Olympus2000
    Guests

    Default

    Pardon my intrusion. I'm definitely not a professional photographer by training nor by trade nor by any means. I'm just a simple guy who has this interest in photography because it captures memorable moments in my life.

    In this topic, I'm torn between to add my possibly useless comments or just to be a reader. I finally succumb to the need to speak a little coz i saw things in simpler sense.

    I think the gap between the digi cam and conv cam seems to be in the use of lens. Current consumer digi cams sold in the stores does not support the flexibility to use an appropriate lens for the right occasion. I'd say that's what limits professional photographers to carry out and capture the desired effect. I always think that once this hurdle is past, it'll be bye bye conv cams...

    I personallly think the output media have reached a point where it has converged for both digi and conv cams. Observed that the digital labs around us are pretty widespread, and that more likely than not, a conv cam film is processed digitally from the labs for photoprints today coz negatives are scanned into the minilabs before it's used to produce prints. If there's a diff, i think the diff is negligible.

    As for a photographer, I'd say any person who can shoot and capture the gist of the moment is a photographer, might not be professional one to capture and bring out its effect, but in essence, a good photographer. I always have a good time telling my fiancee on how and why i took the pictures. We'd spend hours talking about it. For every picture, it never fails to tell a story.

    I've just join the club today and I'm enjoying the forum tremendously!

    Cheero!

  19. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    Originally posted by Olympus2000
    I think the gap between the digi cam and conv cam seems to be in the use of lens. Current consumer digi cams sold in the stores does not support the flexibility to use an appropriate lens for the right occasion. I'd say that's what limits professional photographers to carry out and capture the desired effect. I always think that once this hurdle is past, it'll be bye bye conv cams...
    Hi Olympus2000! Welcome to Clubsnap! Glad to know you're enjoying your experience!

    Just to let you know, but professional digital cameras, and these days they are becoming available to amateurs as well, function essentially like film cameras. They do cost more money than a film camera, but cameras like the Nikon D1x and Canon EOS1D are everybit as capable as film cameras and of course accept the same lenses as their film counterparts.

    (*resists the urge to take a quick pic of his camera and new lens *)

  20. #40

    Default

    Finally someone broke this silence. Digital cams aren't that limited actually, it's more towards the consumer end that's slightly more on the limited side. The industrial end of digital photography has plenty of accessories and lenses for the camera. Not a bad thing, but it ain't necessarily be good. In fact, on the industrial end, digital cameras uses the same lenses that their maker's film models' counterparts uses.

    Now you have mentioned moments, it is the specific timeframe of what looks like at a certain angle at a certain time after the decision to click the shutter is being made. However it's only a flat representation and only serves as a reminder. It's silent and isn't totally reality. Just like a painting. It's the aura of the subject/object through the lens from that particular perspective on the film/CCD.

    On the consumer end I suppose there isn't exactly that much that can be done, but on the industrial end, quite a lot can be done with the prints. Somehow it just looks and feels different from Minilab prints. Not referring to any particular photographic medium here, just the output, digital or negatives.

    Dear Jed, can I have your answer??

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •