Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 27

Thread: Why digital?

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Posts
    740

    Why digital?

    I appreciate that this certainly isn't the first nor the last comment on the gre at debate - digital vs traditional film, but I would like to make a few comments on this forum. I have always had an open mind when it came to digital images, although I do not use or anticipate using digital in my photography, I can see w hy some choose to travel this road. By coincidence, I took delivery of 40 print s today that I have to judge for a competition. There was some awesome digital work - very subtle despite being stitched panoramics - and shot on "consumer" ge ar. Yesterday I took delivery of the current edition of "View Camera" magazine - it takes a bit longer to reach the UK!! Inside were 11 pages dedicated to dig ital, studio work - that was IMHO, nothing special, in fact it was very run of t he mill. But I endeavour to keep up with my interest and so began reading the ac companying text......the prices quoted for the kit used was obscene!! "$25,000 ( here), $19,000 (there) and thats without the cost of the computer itself!!!! The point of this posting? At these prices, and for the quality reproduced in the j ournal, I can see no benefit in going digital (certainly not to this level). I i magine that it will take a long time for prices to drop to a point whereby the a verage enthusiast will neglect film and traditional techniques in favour of digi tal. I am not anti-digital, rather pro-film!! Maybe I am missing the point? But at those prices I can live with that.

  2. #2

    Why digital?

    Well Paul, like everything else is what you do with the stuff, not what it costs. For example Dan Burholder uses a 35 mm, Nikon F4 or F5 I dont know if he has upgraded. He does have a kick ass computer set up, with top of the line Mac for graphics (I dont know what is called). I am sure he has not spent all that money you mention, but he's prints are beautiful. On the other hand if you are a comercial photogrpaher need fast turn around a so so resolution, I think digital is the way too go, specially if you can claim it as a business expense!

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Posts
    740

    Why digital?

    Jorge I agree, but the "amateur produced" digital prints were of good quality and taken with affordable equipment. The View Camera article was illustrated with "average" images that certainly didn't seem to justify the amount spent on gear!

  4. #4

    Why digital?

    Hi Paul, May be, I'm just a cinic, but posssibly The magazine had an ulteria motive. Look, I have not read the magazine (shame on me, but I work out in Saudi Arabia and magazines and the like tend to get butchered by the censors like you will never believe) but just reading whats on this discussion list may be I'm not so paranoid... Never believe all you read in the papers...

  5. #5

    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    4

    Why digital?

    Paul, I know this guy who is a distributer for a "3 pass" digital system. It is used in a Studio Setting and for the most part is used to make catalogs / product shots. Cost: $25,000 . I am not big into Digital Imaging. The occasional digital "snapshot" camera. To make a living, I don't shoot Products, but if I did, I would probably spend at least $25,000 on a system. It would pay for itself in about 1-2 years--- film and processing add-up, and if you are shooting LOTS of products, <i>chromes and E-6 processing add-up fast!<i> Maybe the images in view camera would have looked more impressive if you saw the prints, instead of reproductions of them. On this forum people complained of so-so printing a few issues ago ( "Azo Issue"). Could it be that Amatures or Pro-Amatures because they aren't doing it for a client or for big-bucks are able to shoot better work and put their heart n'soul into the final image. A camera that takes a digital image, or an image using film is just a tool. Expensive tools don't alway make better images. On the same note, it is easy to spot a REALLY BAD DRIVER driving an expensive car, isn't it? Pbear

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Posts
    740

    Why digital?

    Pookie, It seems that if current trends are anything to go by, a digital system bought today for $25k will be obsolete in 18 months time anyhow - do you then need to re-invest another $25k?

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Mar 1998
    Posts
    1,972

    Why digital?

    </I> for vommercial purposes , digital makes a lot of sense , even at thse prices -- and that gear is aomed straight at at commercial image makesrs. It makes dense because of the time savings. As soon as you know the shot is right you can move on to the next one, or make corrections. And the client doesn't needto have the film scanned ,etc.For catalog photography the benefits multiply vecause of the heavy volume.

    You also streamline the reproduction process and the color accuracy-- which can be very important in commercail advertising work.</!>

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Posts
    104

    Why digital?

    Paul, a long time ago, a very wise man told me " Its not the size, shape, color, price, or smell of a man's tool that's important. The only thing important is what he does with it." He wasn't talking about photo equipment at the time. However, cameras, lenses, film, etc. are also tools of the trade. It's interesting that you are upset with the high price of professional digital imaging equipment, while you continually attempt to convince people to purchase Ebony cameras. I believe that Ebonys are "obscenly" priced compared to other wooden field cameras, but you do have a perfect right to own one, if you choose. Film, or digitally produced, the important element is the final image. The market will determine the value, in the long run. I, too, am a film man, and I have no interest in digitally produced images. My wife, on the other hand, uses a digital camera on a daily basis. It has proven to be a valuable tool for her property management business.

  9. #9

    Why digital?

    </i>Normal?

  10. #10
    Yes, but why? David R Munson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Saitama, Japan
    Posts
    1,494

    Why digital?



    I still find myself pro-film like you. However, I love digital for certain applications. I love the convenience and speed of editing and outputting photographs digitally. This quarter I've only output the prints for one assignment via traditional means. Why? Because it's faster and easier, which is a hugely valuable thing to me considering that the less time and frustration I invest in printing my assignments, the more time I have for all the other work I have to do for other professors. It also allows me to make changes, generally subtle ones (like in the image above) to make the concept of some photographs clearer and more successful.

    On the other hand, if I want a print for sale or exhibition purposes, I'll do it in a traditional darkroom. I do this because I still feel that for fine black and white printing, my darkroom skills are still capable of substantially superior results. Besides, I just love the process. I don't care how good and cheap digital gets, I'll still use silver-based processes because it's the way I like to work for the majority of my stuff.

    And as for the cost of digital, it can be ridiculously expensive, but I believe it doesn't have to be quite so stifling. I do all of my digital work on my own personal computer, a Mac G4, and an Epson 1280 printer. I use the school's scanning equipment, which helps keep cost down (though is only a temporary solution). Between the computer, printer, and software, my setup cost me around $3,800.00. No, not chicken feed exactly, especially for a college student, but a lot easier to handle than a $25,000.00 system, and there's not much I can't do. And down the road 10 years there's nothing to say that, given the appropriate upgrades, I won't still be using this system.

    So I guess, to me, the point of all of this is that digital has its place in my mind, and furthermore doesn't have to be so obscenely expensive. It has its benefits and uses, but will never entirely supplant traditional means, if only due to those of us who simply prefer traditional means and materials.

Similar Threads

  1. "Digital 4x5"?
    By Eric Leppanen in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 18-Jul-2005, 22:59
  2. Digital ULF!
    By John Kasaian in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 25-Feb-2005, 23:01
  3. Going digital!
    By paul owen in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 12-Sep-2004, 04:48
  4. 4X5 & Digital?
    By Bob Ring in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 6-May-2004, 04:04

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •