> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of T Rittenhouse > Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 11:26 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Pentax digital SLR - Not now! > > > Hey, I am going to butt in and reply to this. > > No, Dave's 8x10s ain't no where near as good as a good chemical print from > 35mm. They are about as good as the 'make an 8x10 from your 4x6 print' > prints that most people are going to compare them to. But then he > sells them > right then and there and pockets the money. His other choice is to go have > prints made and approach the customer a few days latter as I have done in > the past, or at the next event if the customer is at the next > event. So his > choice is salon grade prints, or a pocket full of money. To me > that is not a > hard choice to make. His prints are acceptable to his clients and that is > really all that matters.
I'm not criticizing what he's doing especially if he's making money from it. BUT, I am an amatuer hobby enthusiast that has only one client - ME! I want the fullest quality 35mm can offer because to ME its marginal format to begin with. I have little interest in the current digital SLRs because I feel they are not as good as good 35mm yet. I'm sure in the future I will end up with one but not now. It's still too much of a compromise to me in terms of picture quality. > > This list like most of the photography lists has this elitist > bent that has > nothing to do with reality. This lens in not sharp, that lens is really, > good, when 99% of the people who look at the photographs can not tell the > difference. The depth of field on this print is not acceptable they say, > leaving nose prints on the print. I dont find that much difference between lenses on a given format but they are there, just subtle. I find HUGE differences between formats 35mm vs. 6X7 for example both in sharpness and grain. > > Not only does Pentax not know anything about supplying gear to > professional > photographers, neither do their customers know anything about what is a > useful and therefore valuable piece of equipment to someone > trying to make a > living from photography, or at least make it pay for itself. And, as an > aside, while photojournalism is the most visible type of professional > photography it is only a small part of the professional market > Pentax doesnt make any money from pros, their market is amatuers. Why do you think they bailed out on the LX??? It wasnt making enuff money. > Now I know that most of the people on the list who looked at my web page, > thought, "what lousy pictures", but many of those snap shots, and I > unabashedly admit I do snap shots, put money in my pocket. > Nothing wrong from making money from ANY shots if you can, but I want image quality for my own satifaction, I dont see how that is eliteist in any way. > I know pros who do make money from pretty pictures, but I doubt > if very many > of them make a profit. Let's see a 30x40 Cibachrome, matting, framing. My > cost $300 or $400. I need to haul around a 50 or so of them so my > potential > customers can paw through them. Ah, I sold 3 8x10s this week for > $50 each. I > have sold 20 or so of my $20 snap shots in a weekend. I imagine that is > about what Dave does also. His digital solves the problem that defeated me > in the past, how to get prints to the customer before they go > home from the > event. Thats a great application for digital no doubt, but totally inappropriate for what I want out of my photography. Different applications altogether. > > Why not buy a toy digicam? Because of the stupid problems that go > with them > like the one you mentioned. What use is a camera that keeps > shutting itself > off in the middle of a shoot to a professional. That feature is for idiot > that takes two shots of their daughter on the teeter-totter then put the > camera away until next weekend without shutting it off. No, that feature is to save battery consumption. Digicams with LCDs are power hogs. How many batteries does he go thru on a shoot? > Also the bigger > sensor gives higher quality images than the small sensor in the toy camera > does at the same resolution. > They are better in terms of noise yes, but not resolution. Lower noise is a definate plus in terms of image quality though. > I guess what I want to say is, get real. > > Ciao, > Graywolf I think I am being realistic when I complain about the problems with todays digital SLRs for MY type of photography. Hell, sometimes I not even satisfied with 6X7 wishing instead that I had used my speed graphic for some shots. I just dont understand how you can say that wanting maximum image quality is "unrealistic". JCO - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
