I worked for The Ithaca Journal, a small (20,000 circulation) daily, for five years up through 2001. The photo department went fully digital after I left, but I agree with the money vs. speed argument. While the additional speed available on deadline is nice, the vast majority of photos for the paper didn't need the speed of digital.

With a color processor in house and several film scanners, the photo dept. could turn a roll of film into digital images ready for publication in a half hour or so. Even the few photos made on deadline, whether a fire, sports event or similar, only get on the page a little bit faster today. With the film cameras, if a breaking news photo was that big a deal, the paper would go to the presses a few minutes later than scheduled.

It's definitely a money issue. No more chemicals, no more processor maintenance, no more film expenses. And in newspaper photography, where we used a 180 dpi resolution for photos but could go to 150 dpi without any noticeable difference, quality was never the top consideration.

Joe



> >That's why newspapers have gone digital. Speed.

Nothing to do with speed.  It's money.  Digital saves me
maybe 15 minutes on deadline over film.  It's more important
if you are a daily and have guys transmitting from the field,
but I've talked to guys on dailies and they also say that
speed is not the real issue.

We're a weekly.  Speed is never an issue.  We went digital
because somebody upstairs finally did the math and realized
that 4 $3000 digital cameras and a thousand dollars in assorted
peripheral support would pay for itself in less than a year
at the rate we were going through color film.   Back when
we were all B&W film and developing were cheap enough to
make digital less obviously a financial win.  A lot of papers
switched to digital or partially digital (scanned not printed)
when they switched to color.  The switch from printing to scanning
which we did some years back also saved a ton of money.

Suppose those 4 $3000 cameras last three years (that's about par, from
what I can tell).   We save two years worth of photo operations
expenses.

Every pro I've talked to looks at a $3000-4000 digital camera
as a $1500-2000 SLR with a lifetime supply of film, and knowing
his operating expenses sees this as a big win economically.
For those folks who don't shoot a lot of film, I can see why
the current price of DSLRs is offputting.

DJE






Reply via email to