13th January 2004, 02:10 AM
Wah so touchy and condescending... So from the above, if anyone buys say the very popular DSLR 300D, the hottest selling car of they year or even watch The Return of the King, then by your definition, they have no opinion then? Your stereotyping is just so wonderful...
Originally Posted by ninelives
Palm vs PPC? I went thru that 'war' last millenium on HWZ so no point rehashing it. FYI, I believe I'm the first few if not the first person to buy a Palm and bring it into SG back in Sept 96, before the company was even sold to USR! I owned a PPC when it was know as a PsPC in Jun 98. So market or not, I buy what *I* want, regardless whether it is market or anti-establishment, based on its merits
Although I like film as some things still cannot be done will on digital, I recognize the preeminance of market forces (which, btw, Alan Greenspan bows to). As for film, it will become niche in a few years, say 4-6. It will retain its use as well as preference in some cases. However, digital will become the dominant image capture method, just like cars vs horse driven carts. See how far it had come in the past 6 years.
Last edited by Watcher; 13th January 2004 at 02:27 AM.
13th January 2004, 03:14 AM
I use both film and digital.
When my friend brings digital I bring film.
When he uses film I shoot digital.
Just to spite him. because he is really wants to be like the rest of the gang and I just cannot let him be.
Get over it and use whatever you want. You will realize nobdody cares, really....
13th January 2004, 10:56 AM
13th January 2004, 11:25 AM
Originally Posted by Caspere
13th January 2004, 12:11 PM
Yah who is Geoff Ang....
Geoff Ang? Nonsense! He is just another photographer who is lucky to have good PR skills and know he's way around the celebrity circle. Just another normal photographer.
Agree with VincentLin that digital it's meant for smoother workflow as in Fashion and Sports Industry (in terms of photography in news and commercial purposes) when it comes to digital. I use both mediums as well.
Depend on case to case basis, if your client can sit and wait for a few days by all means go film. If he is in a hurry, charge more based on digital. For instant results, pay more lah!
Photography is still an art. Somethings cannot by hurried. Well that's how i do it. Charging more is ok as once the commercial is out, I can tell you what the client pay you is peanuts compare what is he is about to spend on a full page ad on magazines, newspapers, MRT & Bus panels and etc.....
Again I stress, it's up to ONE INDIVIDUAL to select what he/she wants. Not you all. Those who have a SLR/DSLR just live with it. I can tell you Film will not die that easily. If the manufacturers do that, they will be earning less. Non of this will happend in the near future. Manufacturers will still continue with both mediums as it is so profitable to them. As for digital, I admit it will keep on improving and "TRY" to emulate a film characteristic.
Who is on the losing end? Consumer lah! We keep BUY BUY BUY. Then don't like it you SELL SELL SELL! Then BUY BUY BUY again. Basically we are buying their technology. We are helping them pay their R&D department.
So guys and gals, let's get on with our lives and stop bickering about what is good and what's not. At the beginning JED have already mention about this topic. Go read what he has to say again.
13th January 2004, 12:21 PM
Err, I don't worship Geoff Ang; I'm just using him as a named example of someone who uses digital in his work. However, his work on digital shows that quality can be obtained from digital images, (at least) on par with film at a lower cost (to him). His work speaks for itself; I don't care if he is the son in law to the US president .
If he cannot deliver the goods with digital, why did KLIA, HSBC, Mercedes Benz asked him to do their ads? What I'm saying is this: digital CAN match (or even exceed) film is some category of photography. That is the point isn't it? Quality? .
Yes, the workflow is better/smoother/easier when it comes editorial. But if the quality "sucks" who would use it? .
Approach digital vs film as a tool instead of getting defensive about it.
BUY BUY BUY and SELL SELL SELL is a problem irrespective of film vs digital, though digital comes out faster, there is a stronger urge to upgrade.
Film not dying so easily? It is already dying truth be told. The entire digital market revenue most likely has already exceeded film in 2002 (much more in 2003). The top tier manufacturers have already slowed down introducing newer models and production for P&S and even, yes, SLR. The number of units for these are already dropping; check out Nikon and Canon's annual report for these facts and their projections.
Last edited by Watcher; 13th January 2004 at 12:31 PM.
13th January 2004, 12:28 PM
13th January 2004, 12:37 PM
Heh, more than kopi . He is pretty young so can chum siong. Anyone know him and can invite him to give a talk?
Originally Posted by clive
13th January 2004, 12:41 PM
Actually, not really. The photojournalists / sports journallists don't have lots of time to spend fiddling on the image. Sure, at the back, they have people to make corrections and tune-ups but with the tight turnaround time needed nowadays, there can't be a lot of tweaking. Don't forget; photos for this category not even in a studio!
Originally Posted by VincentLin
13th January 2004, 01:56 PM
Eh, you're talking to a film dude leh. My opinions will be skewed towards film mah.
Originally Posted by Watcher
I do not agree that digital can exceed film. Nothing digital I have used before feels or look the same as a slide.
I'm not defensive. I'm just waiting for the right time when digital can match film - as per my personal opinion.
It's sad but it's true. However, the industry does still show a strong number of die-hard film users. Like me lor.
Originally Posted by Watcher
The slow down of film cameras is understandable. I'm disgusted that one camera company plans to release 40 models of digital cameras in 2004. The film cameras are coming out slower, because the camera company needs to develop a quality product that will improve on the previous version. Say, the Nikon F5 and the upcoming F6.
Aiyah, I tired liao. You come down my shop and we can argue for, like, two hours lor.
13th January 2004, 02:46 PM
I give up!
I give up too!
Let see if any digital camera can expose 5 hours of star streaks in the skies.
13th January 2004, 02:59 PM
Star Wars Galaxies - "Mounting my Dewback. Huhhuhuh."
vincent, which server are you in? flurry? i cancelled my account after 3 months of play. boring game. still mounting dewback? now got speeder bike already.
13th January 2004, 03:01 PM
Is that a problem with a dSLR on bulb and AC power?
Originally Posted by Godzilla Invades
(Note: i'm just asking a specific question - not joining the fray.)
13th January 2004, 03:05 PM
13th January 2004, 03:25 PM
Go down wif ur guns blazing
Taking a realistic view of things, let's not forget that, in the past 2-3 years, digital has overtaken film in numerous events. A friend's shop selling cameras, has 95 pecent of his sales in digital cameras. Another friend who used to run a film developing studio, has now moved into the nasi lemak business.
Not bad, could use a bit more blachan tho.
I think all this arguing is good. We suddenly realise the convenience that digital photogrpahy has brought for us, at the same time, we realise how good we were/are with the film medium.
But as to which is better, perhaps that is a futile exercise. The digital age is not called digital for nothing. Film is seeing itself die, slowly, but surely. That is a guarantee, not because of quality or convenience, but at the sheer fact that we are going to prefer results on chips and electrical signals rather than a chemical reaction.
It is clear of course that we are masters at film. We can control grain, saturation, contrast, etc. Convenience is not an issue at all. We are all convenient with what we are familiar with. Cost is debateable. With digital, you can go free, but only with what you see on the screen. But check with any photo shop at the moment, and printing a small 3 R photo would amount to the same cost of a print plus developing of a 35mm cassette.
The question above on 5hrs bulb for instance. The answer for film, any amateur can give. Depending on ISO setting, give a bit of leeway for reciprocity error correction and the final image should turn out fine.
But for digital camera, I really don't know... what, maybe 'bad command or file name?'
The end point i am trying to make is that digital is a new area. Especially when it has a huge shadow by film to overwhelm. But surely, looking on the history of polaroid, the walkman, even perhaps the current discman, all arguemnts on quality, convenience, should prove futile.
The winner, I am sorry to guess at, is probably digital
The better question is probably one of time.
Anyone wants to buy an EOS 3?
13th January 2004, 03:29 PM
13th January 2004, 03:35 PM
At the end of the day, isn't the idea to produce good pictures/images?
Why waste time arguing which is better? Perhaps if we spent a little more time shooting, instead of trying to force each others opinion on which system is better, we can improve our "photograghy" skills.
13th January 2004, 03:42 PM
I'm on Bria.
Originally Posted by ninelives
I mount the dewback because it fits my scout character. Besides, it's maintainence free! Vehicles are very very expensive to repair.
If you decide to go back (now got Jedi - lots of dead Jedi), I'm based at Bestine. I'm Ethel Gwynne.
13th January 2004, 03:44 PM
Originally Posted by Godzilla Invades
No need 5 hours. I haven't seen a decent 30 min bulb exposure from a digital camera.
LONG LIVE THE FILM!
14th January 2004, 02:10 AM
Guys you should read this funny one.....