Chris, You're not the kind of guy that thinks a Rolex tells better time are you? :-) My point isn't to do with craft but culture and markets. I can't buy fixer in my locale of 3/4 million people. Got to ship it from Chicago. AZ Build a 120/35mm Lookaround! The Lookaround Book. Now an E-book. http://www.panoramacamera.us > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [SPAM] Re: funeral > From: Chris Telesca - TelephotoNC <telephotonc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Sat, August 09, 2008 8:51 am > To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students > <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > So it gets down to "pretend" pics with a pretend cell phone? I can make > believe with film camera a whole lot easier than with a digital camera. > And another thing - why is having lower-quality things here and now more > important than better quality things you wait for? Hell - even with > film I can go into a drugstore or a one-hour lab on the road and get > pics to hold in my hand a whole lot easier than having to drive all the > way back home to download images on a computer and print out some of them. > Chris > lookaround360@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > Guys, > > > > Go here for argument solver: > > > > http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm > > > > Sure seems like a credible authority. > > > > One more thing... > > > > Three year old grandson "takes" my picture with his pretend cell phone: > > "Click. Do you want to see it?" > > Now, try and explain a good reason for film to 99 percent of the > > population. > > > > AZ > > > > Build a 120/35mm Lookaround! > > The Lookaround Book. > > Now an E-book. > > http://www.panoramacamera.us > > > > > > > > > >> -------- Original Message -------- > >> Subject: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] RE: funeral > >> From: Howard <howard.leigh111@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Date: Sat, August 09, 2008 2:27 am > >> To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students > >> <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Oh no not this old argument again! My memory suggests that all these > >> points have been argued over and over before. > >> I went digital because: > >> I'm not a trained darkroom technician. > >> I don't want to spend zillions of hours in a messy smelly darkroom. > >> I can produce much better prints - and more and cheaper- with digital > >> than I ever could with film AND with far less effort. > >> I can afford to be generous with the actual taking of pictures at > >> virtually no cost to myself. > >> And I do like being able to check I've got what I want rather than wait > >> until I've got the negatives / slides / prints available. > >> But if someone wants to use film then that's fine by me. It doesn't matter. > >> I've still got my film gear. I plan on using it (especially B&W) more > >> when I've retired, whenever that will be. > >> Either way I doubt if anyone will keep more than a fraction of my photos > >> when I've kicked the bucket! > >> Howard > >> Chris Telesca - TelephotoNC wrote: > >> > >>> David Dyer-Bennet wrote: > >>> > >>>> Chris Telesca - TelephotoNC wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I think this is a big issue. > >>>>> > >>>>> I haven't bought into digital because it's not cost-effective for me > >>>>> to spend 8 grand on a camera body that can shoot the same resolution > >>>>> imagery that I can shoot with a 20 year old Nikon. And to have two > >>>>> of them (one for backup) makes even less sense when they will be > >>>>> obsolete in 3 years. > >>>>> > >>>> Measuring resolution is an interesting process. I can make bigger > >>>> prints from 6MP DSLR raw files than I ever managed chemically from > >>>> 35mm film (I mean that look satisfactory to me, of course). But I > >>>> can also make bigger prints from scanned film than I ever could in > >>>> the darkroom, too. For me, grain always limited enlargement, and > >>>> that's no longer the problem for landscape and scenic pictures > >>>> (sometimes noise does play the same limiting role in available light > >>>> photos). > >>>> > >>>> And I have never spent much over 1/4 of $8000 on a digital camera > >>>> body. If you're going for the *top* end -- then shouldn't you be > >>>> talking about more like $50,000? > >>>> > >>> No - 35MM equivalent - Canon 1DsMkIII - $8,000 - 21 megapixels. > >>> And why are you making such big prints from 6MP DSLR raw files? What > >>> are they being used for, and what is the proper viewing distance for > >>> those prints? Do you have a mural size printer for your digital > >>> imagery? I have printed up to 20x24 in a darkroom - are you printing > >>> bigger than that on your own? > >>> > >>> Why would grain limit enlargement size but not the resolution of your > >>> sensor? If you are doing something in Photoshop to minimize the grain > >>> in your digital imagery, then obviously you are doing something that > >>> you can't do with film. > >>> No - when I graduated from RIT in 1984, I had different film format > >>> cameras (Nikon 35MM, Hasselblad 6x6, and Sinar 4x5) and I added some > >>> Speedotron lighting gear. I think by 1986 I had about 10 to 12 grand > >>> in gear that has worked well for me over the years. > >>> > >>>> "Obsolete" is an interesting concept. Seems to me that if they're > >>>> good now, they're good in three years. Possibly something *better* > >>>> will be available, and some people will deride your gear as obsolete > >>>> -- but if the way the new gear is better doesn't matter to you, you > >>>> should just ignore them! And remember that my $2300 Fuji S2 (late > >>>> 2002) came with a "lifetime supply" of free film and processing. I > >>>> think the money I saved on film and lab fees alone paid for that > >>>> camera before I sold it off. And I've made and exhibited a lot more > >>>> prints since going digital than I did when I had a darkroom. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> No - obsolete in that editors and stock houses want files of a certain > >>> resolution, which increases over the years. If a stock house kept the > >>> same requirements they had year ago when the first Nikon D1 came out, > >>> they would get bombarded bombarded with tons of submissions from guys > >>> with point and shoot digital cameras that have higher resolution than > >>> the D1 had when it came out. > >>> > >>>>> I have every negative I have ever shot going back to when I was 14 > >>>>> years old. Granted some of that stuff isn't worth printing, but I > >>>>> also have negatives that are over 60 years old that I can do > >>>>> everything from print to scan. Try doing that with digital imagery > >>>>> that is stored on a medium that might not work in a year or more, or > >>>>> when it craps out you have nothing to fall back on. > >>>>> > >>>> I have slides that I shot myself that have faded significantly, > >>>> though using digital technology I can recover much of the color. I > >>>> have color prints other people gave the family long ago that are > >>>> faded past the point that I can restore the colors (I can still get a > >>>> poor B&W image from them). It would last much better, of course, if > >>>> I stored it in controlled-humidity cold storage. But I'll bet you're > >>>> not storing yours that way either. > >>>> > >>> Actually - close to it. At or below 70 degrees with controlled > >>> humidity, dark storage, archival pages. And of course you can use > >>> digital technology to improve > >>> > >>>> (The oldest of my own negatives I'm sure I can still lay hands on > >>>> date to 1962; I have access to considerably older photos in my > >>>> mother's collection.) > >>>> > >>>> You're certainly right that a digital archive must be intelligently > >>>> and diligently managed to stay safe. If left untended for a long > >>>> time, it's likely to disappear, through media degradation or format > >>>> changes (the format changes don't really make it quite disappear, > >>>> they just increase the cost of getting it back into modern formats). > >>>> However, if diligently tended, a digital archive can be *eternal*; > >>>> something there was never any hope of for film images (other than by > >>>> scanning to digital form). > >>>> > >>> That's just it - how often do you have to tend it and spend money > >>> updating your digital archive? With film, it's just there. > >>> > >>>> I think my digital photos are much safer, during my lifetime, than my > >>>> film photos are. I can manage an archive of this size myself, and > >>>> the timespan isn't that big a challenge to the media. > >>>> > >>> I disagree. > >>> > >>>> And if my house burns down, or is flooded, or carried off to Oz by a > >>>> tornado, or whatever, I won't lose my digital photos. I'll lose all > >>>> my film photos except the ones I have scans of. (I really do have > >>>> off-site backups of my digital photos; up through about a month ago > >>>> currently, but I'm likely to get that updated this weekend). > >>>> > >>> Fire proof safe. > >>> > >>>> Look, if you're happier shooting film, and like the results better, > >>>> more power to you. Keep doing it that way! But try to keep your > >>>> claims about digital toned down to the actual truth. (Also your > >>>> claims about film.) There's plenty of stuff where the exact lines > >>>> are fuzzy; we can argue about those to our heart's content :-). > >>>> > >>> My claims are the truth about film and digital - from my perspective > >>> If digital works for you - more power to you. But when you say that I > >>> need to keep my claims toned down to the actual truth, then admit that > >>> some lines are fuzzy, you are not making a good case that my opinions > >>> about film are less truthful than yours. > >>> I know that my cost to start processing and printing B&W film and > >>> prints was a lot less than having to do digital. Think about it - you > >>> need a digital camera, a computer and a printer. You are talking > >>> about thousands of dollars right there. Then you have your paper and > >>> inks. > >>> > >>> > >>>> Have you shot with a DSLR yourself? Or seen work by good > >>>> photographers using that kind of equipment? It rather sounds like you > >>>> don't have much idea of the capabilities of current equipment. > >>>> > >>> No - I do have friends who have pro DSLR equipment and I know how > >>> their gear compares to what I shot with now. It's simply not worth > >>> spending that kind of green for equipment that shoots the same > >>> resolution as film when I already have film gear that works fine. > >>> > >>>>> I have pics of my grandparents and great grandparents that I can > >>>>> reprint if need be, or scan if I want to. If I had to shoot these > >>>>> pics on digital, I'd have to transfer over from one generation of > >>>>> storage to another every couple of years - and add to it all the new > >>>>> stuff I shoot. > >>>>> > >>>> I've been shooting a lot of digital since 2000. I have *not once* > >>>> had to transfer over storage media during those 8 years. I can buy > >>>> brand-new drives in ordinary consumer stores to read all of it that's > >>>> on removable media, if necessary. > >>>> > >>>> I started having some of my film scanned in about 1993, I think. I > >>>> have *not once* had to transfer over storage media during those 15 > >>>> years. The original media are readable (as of a month ago, when I > >>>> last tried), plus they're on my file server (mirrored), two backup > >>>> disk drives, on-site optical disks, and off-site optical disks. The > >>>> original media for these are CDs; they can be read in all current > >>>> computers, and I can even write new CDs, it's by no means an obsolete > >>>> medium yet. > >>>> > >>>> I absolutely agree that a long-term digital archive will need to deal > >>>> with this issue; that plus the life-span of the media are the reason > >>>> that a digital archive must be diligently managed. It does not do at > >>>> all well on benign neglect, and that has consequences for historians > >>>> and archivists and future archaeologists; definitely. > >>>> But "every couple of years" is a gross exaggeration. > >>>> > >>>>> Properly processed and stored silver-based imagery will last longer > >>>>> than CDs and DVDs. > >>>>> > >>>> Are you storing yours properly? Low temperature and controlled > >>>> humidity, etc.? How much does it cost to store a significant > >>>> collection that way? And by silver-based you mean B&W, right? So, > >>>> short of RGB separations, no color photography in the collection? > >>>> > >>> No - silver-based means color. Color negative film, color slide film > >>> and color prints - they all use silver. > >>> > >>>> Even with that -- we don't know which will last longer. But I think > >>>> it's very likely that top-grade CD blanks written in a good drive > >>>> will out-last chromogenic color materials stored at room > >>>> temperature. I wouldn't be certain that they wouldn't out-last > >>>> silver-gelatine materials, but over *that* timespan changes in media > >>>> standards are nearly certain to be an issue as well. But the > >>>> lifespan of one copy of the data on a CD doesn't matter that much; a > >>>> digital archive isn't dependent for its integrity on one piece of media. > >>>> > >>> Show me the tests. And then show me a computer that uses a floppy > >>> disk that you can buy today. > >>> > >>>> Of course, in 200 years, say, you may very well not be able to find > >>>> an enlarger, or printing paper, or even a film scanner. Presumably > >>>> somebody could build or adapt something to do that job for you, since > >>>> of course high-resolution imaging of small areas will continue to be > >>>> important for science and probably art as well; but there may well > >>>> not be any off-the-shelf way to make prints from your B&W negatives > >>>> in 200 years. > >>>> > >>> And there may not be any way to take the digital imagery you have on > >>> your discs and turn them into prints. You might not be able to find > >>> cables or adapters. > >>> But if they have a scanner, I would be able to load up my film and do > >>> something with it. You might not be able to take digital imagery off > >>> your discs and do anything with it if your discs can't communicate > >>> with the computers of tomorrow. > >>> Chris Telesca > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > > > >
