Digital is Dumb - Part 3

The other to threads are going in the same direction so let's go another way
here.
The obvious troll line is unfortunate.
There are a great many of us who use both film and digital methods. There
are a great many poor film photogs and probably more poor digital photogs.
but for those of us who have pursued quality digital work, after so many
years we are starting to have serious quality output. i think my own digital
work challanges film for quality.
To say digital is dumb, is to say my efforts are dumb, and as such is quite
offensive. rather my work is serious and of high quality. i am personally
offended by the tagline.
if anyone expects serious dialog in an offensive thread such as this, they
should consider the nature of the tag statement.
i rather think an apology is due
Carl

Carl

Re: Digital is Dumb - Part 3

According to Ken Rockwell, CDs are better for long-term archiving. Even he
admits that he got this information from others that are more knowledgeable.
It has to do with the level of error correction used in DVDs.:
"DVDs were never designed with the error correction levels of CDs and I've
heard people who know warn against them for data archiving. We designed the
DVD for MPG video where we can loose data; we realized the CD was
overengineered for audio and wasted too much data on redundancy for error
correction. We fixed that in the DVD making it less suitable for data files
but better for releasing movie rentals."
I personally can't confirm this, as I am not technically qualified, but I
have decided to do my archiving on CDs as a result of reading this article.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/3000slides.htm

Jeremy

Re: Digital is Dumb - Part 3

I don't think anyone knows for sure how well burned DVDs will
hold up. If you think that you can put them in a box in a drawer
and be sure of reading them 30 years from now, I think you would
be taking a very big risk. If you plan on making multiple copies
and then make duplicates on new media every few years, I think
you would be pretty safe. I think that most people are not likely
to maintain their archives of digital photos very well. It seems
to be human nature to be interested in snapshots shortly after
taking them and then find them interesting again much later,
but not to care about them very much in the mean time.
Last week I made prints of family snapshots from B&W negatives
which had been sitting in a desk since 1968 or 69. The negatives
were just like new. It was a lot of fun showing the prints to my
parents. While I have no desire to put down digital storage,
I think you might do well to take a roll of Kodachrome or a roll
of B&W film now and then.
Peter.
--
pirwin@ktb.net

Peter

Re: Digital is Dumb - Part 3

But for me the biggest cost in using film was not the cost of the film
Yes. And this has come about since the digital revolution....In the past,
photography was a lonely pastime. Those of us who practiced it, did so
mostly in private, or with the participation of our immediate families.
Occasionally we would bore some of our friends with our images when they
came to visit.
But today, one doesn't just take pictures and archive them away for some
future generation to find and discard. Today, we can e-mail them to the rest
of the world. Send them to our friends and relatives all over the country,
and in fact. download their images and retouch and crop them in our
Photoshop program as well. It is a whole new ball game, and is, to me, a lot
more interesting than the old way. Just the ability to retouch and crop my
color images and slides is revolutionary....I could never do that before,
much less send them to others in a few seconds. Digitization has really
improved photography to me, and I am still using film!

William Graham

Re: Digital is Dumb - Part 3

(I have heard DVD`s burned have
DVDs are too new to really know how they will do in the long run. For
now I am being cautious and re-burning my archives from time to time.
I have not had nearly the problems that some people claim CDs and have
had much more problems with film fading then most other report. But I
have Kodachrome slides from more then 20 years ago that are in ok
condition, only time will tell with DVDs.
My CDs from 8 years ago see to still be in good condition.
Scott

Scott W

Re: Digital is Dumb - Part 3

With a young family, I could not agree with you more. Above all else,
it is this point that has made digital most rewarding for me. I take
atleast 20 times more pictures than I had taken with film. I archive
5% of them at ridiculously low costs. (I have heard DVD`s burned have
a shelf-life of atleast that of Kodachrome. Anyone verify this?)
Also, Instant gratification has a price. For me, it is well worth it.
Tien

Ttdaomd@hotmail.com

Re: Digital is Dumb - Part 3

If you are shooting enough photos that hard drive space is an issue
then you could not afford to shoot with film. Even external drives are
getting down to around $0.50/GB. If I shoot raw and save the raw file
and a good jpeg from the raw I am looking at about 12MB/photo. It cost
way less then a penny / photo to store it on my hard drive.
The computer I have to have in any event so there is really no extra
cost here.
I have never replaced digital cameras every 1.5 to 2 years, closer to
every 3 years and that is getting longer as the rapid pace of
improvement is slowing down.
But in some ways the bigger point is that since I am not "wasting"
film every time I push the shutter I find I take a lot wider range of
photos. I capture a lot more of the everyday kind of things that go on
around me. And as time goes by it is these photos that have the
greatest value.
But for me the biggest cost in using film was not the cost of the film
or the cost of the processing but rather the cost of my time scanning
the film.
Scott

Scott W

Re: Digital is Dumb - Part 3

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 04:51:53 GMT, "nathantw"
The computer and hard drive would be upgraded every
few years, regardless. That's just the way it is.
If your Nikon FE is still going strong, good for you. I have
two at this point. Neither one is usable any more and
neither is worth fixing. The first of these is of the same
vintage as yours -- it was my first "good" SLR, bought
in 1981 or so. This is (was) good gear but nothing
lasts forever.
People with the skills & tools needed to maintain this
gear are disappearing. It's a throw-away society.
I could get a "bargain" FE2 body at KEH for maybe $130,
but not even sure if that is worth doing.
My Canon 10D is still going strong. I doubt it will be useful
for 15 more years but I don't really care. When its big
brother (say, the 5D) comes down a bit in price, I will bid 35
mm film a fond farewell.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

Raphael Bustin

Re: Digital is Dumb - Part 3

So while you replace your expensive digital camera every 1.5 to 2 years, a
computer every 2 years, and a larger hard drive every now and then I'll
still be using my Nikon FE that I bought in 1981. I think I'll come out
wayyyy ahead of you regardless of how many rolls of film I buy and get
developed.

Nathantw

Re: Digital is Dumb - Part 3

Very true. However, we can almost discount the costs associated with
computer technology because most homes today have computers. (If you
counter that professionals buy computers for the sole use of
photography then I can also counter that as professionals it is in
their best interests to buy digital cameras.)
When I made my computations, I assumed a workflow like what
I am used to.
In a typical on-the-spot assignment (parades, school programs, etc) I
usually take over 500 shots and then choose the best from among those.
On a still life shoot I make over 100 shots under varied lighting
conditions and arrangements and then choose the best among those.
Under such a workflow I think you will agree that a digital camera is
cheaper (but not necessarily better) than a film SLR. With a film
camera I am likely to take more shots (bracketing, etc.) as I do not
have the benefit of instant review of images.
There comes a point when a digital SLR system is cheaper than
a comparable film SLR system and I believe that under the conditions
similar to mine, I would advise anyone to buy digital SLR whenever
he shoots more than 1 roll a week.
But then again, what do I know?
Well, Mamiya just got a shot in the arm because of gizmos like the
PhaseOne P45 digital back! Anyway, my point in the post above is that
digital vs film debates often center around which one has more
resolution. Digital buffs present the Canon EOS 1Ds II and film buffs
counter with medium format. Digital then comes back with the PhaseOne
P45 and film returns with sheet film. Now, the digital camp has new
weapon in their arsenal: a 111 Megapixel CCD sensor recently delivered
to the US Navy. Expect film zealots to counter this with sheet film
larger than your car and the endless debate will continue spiralling
until kingdom come.
Most of the debate is pretty pointless anyway. Most of us won't need a
111 MPx camera anymore than most film users will ever need a camera
capable of taking in sheet film. Me, I'll probably stay with 35mm.
I will agree with you on this point. I really pity the new photography
hobbyist who has to shell out so much just to buy basic digital
equipment. As someone wiser than me said, "Digital photography has
become like the computer industry, you need to spend a lot just to keep
up." I guess that is "progress" for you.
My point in the above is that film is no longer as profitable for Kodak
and Fuijifilm as it used to be for the very reasons you just mentioned.
While film SLRs last decades, few DSLRs will last more than 5 years.
Kodak, Canon, Nikon and Fujifilm would like nothing more than film
photography to go away so that they can continue selling expensive
DSLRs to the same buyer every few years.
Kodak has stopped production of film in the US and Fujifilm has already
moved most of its 35mm film production to China. All it will take is
some bean counter in Tokyo to make a decision and Velvia is no more.
I'm afraid that -- however we may try to deny it -- 35mm film is in
danger of going away.
I know a few people who bought a Canon EOS 20D and some lenses and then
retired their precious equipment to the closet after the novelty wore
off. Not everyone enjoys photography it seems. (For what its worth, I
broke a leg, got a bad sunburn, and lost my wallet and cellphone for
the sake of this passion of mine. And I'm not even a good photographer!
I joined this forum because I want to be with people who understand why
I went through all the above and even need to carry a heavy tripod
around on vacation!)
I think it is wise to hold off spending so much when one is unsure if
their hobby will become serious enough to require much spending.

Robert_pascual

Re: Digital is Dumb - Part 3

point well taken
Carl

Carl

Content - Digital is Dumb - Part 3

Found 19 post(s). Page 1 of 2
| 1 | 2 |

Xtralarge Minecraft Server

Photoshop questions