Digital Cameras can't make it?


Status
Not open for further replies.

Necroist

New Member
Jan 27, 2002
498
0
0
www.ragingbox.com
#1
I noticed on photo.net, almost all of the top photographers there are all using SLRs. Will Digital Cameras ever rank up there? (worst of all, i can't find a single person on photo.net's gallery using a sony dsc-f707)
 

Klause

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2002
1,417
0
0
34
Bedok
Visit site
#2
Quoted from Mega's Famous Quote:

"It's not the camera that matters... it's the photographer."

Digital or Not digital, it doesn't matter ..


P.S: i can sense that there is going to be hot discussion in this thread .. ;p
 

Falcon

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2002
2,768
0
0
37
#3
Of course, just look at some of the shots taken here by digital camera. They are definitely good enough to be on the top.
 

#4
Originally posted by Necroist
I noticed on photo.net, almost all of the top photographers there are all using SLRs. Will Digital Cameras ever rank up there? (worst of all, i can't find a single person on photo.net's gallery using a sony dsc-f707)
Professional Digital SLRs can rival film quality, the images are very, very clean, and devoid of grain. Consumer digital cameras (like the 707) still has a long way to go before it can match slide film on an SLR.

Regards
CK
 

StreetShooter

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2002
4,634
0
0
Katong
streetshooter.clubsnap.org
#5
Not that it really matters on the resolutions used to post pictures on photo.net (which I visit every time I need a dose of inspiration!).

I suppose the difference is that with film you take the time to compose your shots and make your exposures, rather than machine gunning away and posting bo-liao shots like your feet, a building against the sky or the bathroom tiles opposite your toilet bowl....
 

Mar 15, 2002
432
0
0
49
Greece
two.xthost.info
#6
Originally posted by Necroist
I noticed on photo.net, almost all of the top photographers there are all using SLRs. Will Digital Cameras ever rank up there? (worst of all, i can't find a single person on photo.net's gallery using a sony dsc-f707)
I guess that all are using Olympus ?!! :D :D :D
 

willyfoo

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2002
2,048
0
0
43
North
willyfoo.com
#8
Originally posted by Necroist
I noticed on photo.net, almost all of the top photographers there are all using SLRs. Will Digital Cameras ever rank up there? (worst of all, i can't find a single person on photo.net's gallery using a sony dsc-f707)
There are people in the ranking who are using digital cameras (I've seen 2 who are using 707s)
 

Necroist

New Member
Jan 27, 2002
498
0
0
www.ragingbox.com
#9
There are? Perhaps I scroll too fast, I've only read up to rank 30.

Care to share with me their names or their links?
 

willyfoo

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2002
2,048
0
0
43
North
willyfoo.com
#10
Originally posted by Necroist
There are? Perhaps I scroll too fast, I've only read up to rank 30.

Care to share with me their names or their links?
Darren (D1x)
Simon (D30)
Myself (F707)

We're fluctuating around the 100 to 200 area..
 

JasK

New Member
Mar 14, 2002
82
0
0
43
Room
www.jaskiew.com
#11
Originally posted by ckiang


Professional Digital SLRs can rival film quality, the images are very, very clean, and devoid of grain. Consumer digital cameras (like the 707) still has a long way to go before it can match slide film on an SLR.

Regards
CK
ckiang is right, nothing beats the results u get from slides, unless i am using the pro digital slrs or digital backs.

most would agree no?
 

YSLee

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2002
2,326
1
38
Visit site
#12
What do you consider as top photographers in the first place? A ranking system that can be unscrupously manipulated like photo.net's one? A system where there are people who don't know better vote for each others photos?

Or do you consider a top photographer as one who has done critically acclaimed work that is recognised by both fellow peers and masses?

Or one who has made much wealth in the field of photography?

As you can see, there are many many ways to qualify the words "Top photographer". A simple ranking system doesn't mean your're the best. Being famous doesn't mean you're the best either. Neither does being a rich pro mean you're the best. The word best is highly subjective in its own way, and I'd rather you stop making assumptions based on numbers without having really seen photos taken by the "best".
 

Necroist

New Member
Jan 27, 2002
498
0
0
www.ragingbox.com
#13
Originally posted by YSLee
What do you consider as top photographers in the first place? A ranking system that can be unscrupously manipulated like photo.net's one? A system where there are people who don't know better vote for each others photos?

Or do you consider a top photographer as one who has done critically acclaimed work that is recognised by both fellow peers and masses?

Or one who has made much wealth in the field of photography?

As you can see, there are many many ways to qualify the words "Top photographer". A simple ranking system doesn't mean your're the best. Being famous doesn't mean you're the best either. Neither does being a rich pro mean you're the best. The word best is highly subjective in its own way, and I'd rather you stop making assumptions based on numbers without having really seen photos taken by the "best".
Well, in my opinion, the ranking system of photo.net is pretty inaccurate. In fact, I know of some other photographers that took far better photographs than the #1, #2, #3 - #10.

But its no denying that those that are on the top 10 list have great photographs to share with the world.
 

JasK

New Member
Mar 14, 2002
82
0
0
43
Room
www.jaskiew.com
#14
Originally posted by willyfoo


Darren (D1x)
Simon (D30)
Myself (F707)

We're fluctuating around the 100 to 200 area..
heh longtime since i been to photonet, just found out i am at no. 1962, didnt even know that there is this ranking thing there, i dont really believe in the ranking.
 

#15
Originally posted by JasK


ckiang is right, nothing beats the results u get from slides, unless i am using the pro digital slrs or digital backs.

most would agree no?
I shot with a number of digital cameras (not necessarily mine), looked at the output from some digital cameras, and so far, out of those I've tried, the only one that can touch film quality are those like the Canon D30, Fuji S1Pro, D1, etc. But until display technology improves, digital images on a monitor still cannot match slide viewed on a lightbox via good loupe or even projected slides.

The consumer ones are getting better in image quality, but they invariably lose out in more demanding situations. Still, they give better image quality than film shot on a lousy compact camera and processed in the "auntie" neighbourhood labs.

Regards
CK
 

spider

New Member
Feb 2, 2002
129
0
0
Singapore
photos.yahoo.com
#16
agreed.....recently processed my Fuji NPH film at the Kodak express shop and upon collecting, the auntie told me their machine got no 'channel' for my negatives...and the wired thing was she still proccess the photo like nobody business and result were wash-out color worst that the one i scanned and print on my 5 years old epson 700...............
 

P

PixMac

Guest
#17
The consumer or even pro-sumer digital cameras have come a long way since the 640x480 days. Equipment have been improving rapidly for the past couple of years. Nowadays, we're looking at 4, 5 and even 6 megapix! Quality of pictures have increased tremendously.

I see the day that digital cameras will be the standard tool for 'consumer' photographers. Film will belong to a certain niche... the pros, the purists...

Talking about photo.net... if i remember correctly, Ark19 had a picture featured as photo of the week! Right Ark?

PixMac
 

#18
Originally posted by spider
agreed.....recently processed my Fuji NPH film at the Kodak express shop and upon collecting, the auntie told me their machine got no 'channel' for my negatives...and the wired thing was she still proccess the photo like nobody business and result were wash-out color worst that the one i scanned and print on my 5 years old epson 700...............
Don't send a pro film like the NPH to neighbourhood labs. They don't know how to process it well (heck, they don't know how to process regular film well either).

Send it to the better labs like Colour Lab, Konota, RGB, etc. I never had any problems with NPH prints and scans from Colour Lab.

Regards
CK
 

Jed

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
3,911
0
0
UK
Visit site
#19
Originally posted by PixMac
The consumer or even pro-sumer digital cameras have come a long way since the 640x480 days. Equipment have been improving rapidly for the past couple of years. Nowadays, we're looking at 4, 5 and even 6 megapix! Quality of pictures have increased tremendously.
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.
 

spider

New Member
Feb 2, 2002
129
0
0
Singapore
photos.yahoo.com
#20
Originally posted by ckiang


Don't send a pro film like the NPH to neighbourhood labs. They don't know how to process it well (heck, they don't know how to process regular film well either).

Send it to the better labs like Colour Lab, Konota, RGB, etc. I never had any problems with NPH prints and scans from Colour Lab.

Regards
CK
thanks CK....but can some kind soul list down the address of these pro-lab, and wat's the charge like ?
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom