RE: Digital-Film Wars: To Byte or not to Byte
Chris Brogden replied to my comments on a local commercial photographer and his attachment to film, vs. digital: 15 to 20 seconds [download time from camera to computer] is too slow And how long does it take to develop film? He finds digital to be limiting because he's not able to line up a series of shots thus captured and compare them side-by-side Sure he can... they'll just be a smaller size to fit them on the screen. It's like liking up a bunch of negatives to look at [Snip] I would even argue that looking at digital pics on a monitor can be even easier and more productive in some cases than looking directly at negatives [Snip] Hi Chris, You make good points. So you'd think that for this fellow, switching to digital would be an easy decision. Thus, I'm surprised that this fellow insists that for now -- and probably for five years out -- he believes film is still an advantage for his clients. Hmmm, I'm still puzzled. Maybe I'll see if I can find an e-mail address for this guy and send him a note. Perhaps it's got a lot to do with the types of subjects he shoots. It sounds like he's comparing digital files (non-prints) to prints from negatives, and that's an apples/oranges comparisons That could be it right there. I can see the advantage of comparing hardcopy images (hardcopy meaning a print or a negative, vs. a virtual image). Maybe you would call that a ~preference~ rather than an ~advantage~. This would be indeed be an apples/oranges sort of comparison, as you suggest. Well, one more thing to ponder! Cheers, Bill Peifer Rochester, NY
Re: Digital-Film Wars: To Byte or not to Byte
On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Peifer, William [OCDUS] wrote: He finds that the time it takes to transfer images from camera to computer (15 to 20 seconds, according to the article) is too slow And how long does it take to develop film? and he finds digital to be limiting because he's not able to line up a series of shots thus captured and compare them side-by-side. Sure he can... they'll just be a smaller size to fit them on the screen. It's like liking up a bunch of negatives to look at. If you want to line up prints, you can make prints from digital files even easier than from negatives, so what's the big deal? It sounds like he's comparing digital files (non-prints) to prints from negatives, and that's an apples/oranges comparisons. If he wants to make prints and line them up, he can do that from either media. If he wants to look at the pre-print image, he has to accept compromises both with pics on a monitor and with viewing negatives directly. I would even argue that looking at digital pics on a monitor can be even easier and more productive in some cases than looking directly at negatives. chris
Re: Digital-Film Wars: To Byte or not to Byte
Dun't know about downloadtimes, but comparing images side by side is nonsense: just get a dual (or more) BIG (21) monitor setup and say goodbye to light table. In fact, on the screen one can see a few images magnified at the same time -- try that with slides! He's either fond of loupes, or has a lousy IT dept. Now, before flames start flying, I am talking about multimonitor setup. Of course, running Photoshop on a single 14 monitor sucks. Mishka -Original Message- From: Peifer, William [OCDUS] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 10:58:25 -0400 Subject: Digital-Film Wars: To Byte or not to Byte Hi folks, With all this talk about what was -- and what wasn't -- at Photokina, I found it interesting to read a short article about a local commercial/advertising photo studio in the business section of yesterday's local newspaper. It's a busy studio with big accounts with a major grocery store chain and several other large clients in our region. [The name's Buschner Studios. Perhaps Mark Roberts recognizes the name?] The owner stated in this article that while he does use digital cameras to some extent, most of his work is still done with film. He finds that the time it takes to transfer images from camera to computer (15 to 20 seconds, according to the article) is too slow, and he finds digital to be limiting because he's not able to line up a series of shots thus captured and compare them side-by-side. He suspects this may not be the case in maybe five years, but for now at least, he prefers working with film. This surprised me, since I thought advertising photography would be most likely of all to be digitally driven. Seems like this fellow and his partner certainly have enough business to invest the necessary capital for switching to primarily digital. Or is this case just a fluke? Or did the newspaper reporter misquote the typical image download times? Hmmm Bill Peifer Rochester, NY
RE: Digital-Film Wars: To Byte or not to Byte
Mishka wrote: Dun't know about downloadtimes, but comparing images side by side is nonsense: just get a dual (or more) BIG (21) monitor setup and say goodbye to light table I can see where this approach could be problematic, though. Six or eight different shots (Polaroids, maybe?) taken under six or eight different lighting conditions would be easy to compare side-by-side. Six or eight different monitors side-by-side doesn't sound practical at all. Even if so many monitors could be properly calibrated, wouldn't the typical 72-dpi resolution of a typical monitor be a serious limiting factor? Seems like comparing higher-resolution prints, rather than screen images, would be better. No? If that's indeed the case, then maybe this fellow's decision not to go digital at this time has to do with the time it takes to make instant prints from digital images. Bill Peifer Rochester, NY
RE: Digital-Film Wars: To Byte or not to Byte
And also not surprising to see big electronic companies, like Sony, trying to convince us that film is dead. DG At 01:11 PM 10/1/02 -0400, you wrote: This is one report by a non photographer. The information is therefore anecdotal in nature. If you are looking for meaningful information on a trend, then you would have to see some data derived from a survey. Now, unless the photographer is referring to multiple scan MF type studio camera, there is no need to download images after every shot, because they are stored in the camera. You can buy DSLRs that work at over 5 fps. It's not surprising to see, Film is Good articles in a Rochester newspaper. From: Peifer, William [OCDUS] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... He finds that the time it takes to transfer images from camera to computer (15 to 20 seconds, according to the article) is too slow,...
