Gigapixel images go mainstream

[Jiri Vasina]

I understand your points. And agree that economics must be taken into account. But if you want to include film/processing price on one hand, you have to take into account also the moral and physical lifetime of a computer (maximum of 3 years for moral lifetime), software needed. So you have to say where is there limit to price of what to include. Then it's a matter of doing some math.

In case of LF, I think that you can include even second hand inventory. Because it works much longer, holds the price much longer (you can sell a used lens/LF camera for much more than a mere 3months old digital camera of any kind).

... You make it sound as if nobody could possibly enjoy taking and processing a photo digitally. ...

No I did not say anything like that. I only said that the person taking his/her decision should consider his/her preferences. In my case, I have gone for shooting digital and very quickly realized I don't enjoy it as much as I enjoy either MF or LF shooting (much more LF). But I understand that other people may like sitting in front of a computer screen more.

The last but not least important think is a distinction between an amateur or a professional. For me as an amateur is much more reasonable (or even feasible) to spread the price of material over a long timespan. I could not afford to buy a camera like Canon's 1D line (any of them) or even the 5D + a good lens.

A pro who's getting paid for the work and who can write the price of the equipment off, it's a completely different consideration. But then I would certainly consider a MF digital solution...

[Marko]

I understand your points. And agree that economics must be taken into account. But if you want to include film/processing price on one hand, you have to take into account also the moral and physical lifetime of a computer (maximum of 3 years for moral lifetime), software needed. So you have to say where is there limit to price of what to include. Then it's a matter of doing some math.

The way I see it, price of film and film processing is included into the price of a digital camera. The price of prints and print processing, on the other hand, including the cost of the darkroom itself is what should be compared to the price of the computer (and equipment).

I'm afraid I don't quite understand what did you mean by moral lifetime, but as far as physical lifetime is concerned, 3 years is rather a minimum, and self-imposed one in most cases at that. When you think about it, Mac G3 is now almost 10 years old. I still have one of those in perfectly operable condition sitting somewhere in the garage.

Of course, computers used by humans and for more than one narrow purpose do need to be replaced more frequently, but more for social than for technological reasons, i.e. maintaining file and software compatibility with clients and contractors, or simply in order to stay current with the newest software.

But the crux here is that computers are multi-purpose technology. Except for a relatively small group of hard-core luddites, I cannot imagine a non-retired person with at least high school level education being able to live and function in contemporary (developed) society without a personal computer. In most cases, all that is needed would be software and perhaps a judicious disk and/or memory upgrade, although not by much.

In case of LF, I think that you can include even second hand inventory. Because it works much longer, holds the price much longer (you can sell a used lens/LF camera for much more than a mere 3months old digital camera of any kind).

If you check eBay, you might be surprised at how much some two- or three-year old models still command, used.

But let's not have yet another thread degenerate into film vs. digital, God knows we've had more than enough of those!

[Jiri Vasina]

Of course, computers used by humans and for more than one narrow purpose do need to be replaced more frequently, but more for social than for technological reasons, i.e. maintaining file and software compatibility with clients and contractors, or simply in order to stay current with the newest software.

This is precisely moral lifetime.

[Jiri Vasina]

But let's not have yet another thread degenerate into film vs. digital, God knows we've had more than enough of those!

Yes, we don't need that again. It's pretty much settled - for some people and some applications one of them is the (much better and easier) way to go.

And yes, I also can not imagine an active person without a computer. (I will buy a second current one in near future, as one is not enough for our family of 2 adults and a 2 year old ). But I sit in front of a computer all my day job, so I prefer my hobby to be without one...

[paulr]

YAnd yes, I also can not imagine an active person without a computer. (I will buy a second current one in near future, as one is not enough for our family of 2 adults and a 2 year old ...

my sister's family has about a dozen computers. when i expressed astonishment, she said, "it's not as bad as you think. only five of them work."

[Daniel_Buck]

how many cameras do yall have? Personally, I have more cameras than I do computers :-) I have one computer (which gets upgraded every 3 years or so, not entirely, usually just the main components: motherboard, processor and ram), and probably 8 cameras of various types. (plus parts for cameras and computers all over the place) Replacing/upgrading computers isn't bad or unexpected, it's just part of having new/evolving technology. I'm sure cameras in the very early days of photography were similar.

[Marko]

I have three digital, two 35mm and two 4x5 cameras. On the other hand, I have about five working computers at this moment.

The big difference between them is: my computers earn money, and my cameras cost money. So far, the computers have been much more successful at it.

[Daniel_Buck]

I have three digital, two 35mm and two 4x5 cameras. On the other hand, I have about five working computers at this moment.

The big difference between them is: my computers earn money, and my cameras cost money. So far, the computers have been much more successful at it.

yea, no kidding computers can do more than a camera though

[Ole Tjugen]

I have one digital camera (not counting the cellphone) and about 17 cameras from 35mm to 30x40cm. I also have two working computers.

None of these earn money.

My job could be done just as well using paper and pencil (which is really how I still do 30% of the job, the remaining 70% is thinking), a computer is just a convenience that makes it easier to send nicely coloured reports to my clients.

[Don Miller]

Here is a new photo-sharing site for gigapixel images:
http://www.gigapan.org/

And here is a $300 automated pano head:
http://www.news.com/8301-13580_3-9785356-39.html

"What if you could do imagery that is so high-resolution that the act of looking at the image is an act of exploration?"

I guess LF photography is becoming quaint when it comes to pure resolution. Now that gigapixel goes mainstream, nobody is going to be impressed by the image detail of a 4x5...

I'm sure I paid more for my RRS pano head. If well implemented it could be a nice addition to a digital camera. Someday someone may actually take a good gigapixel photograph.